IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Ex. Petition No. 08 of 2021 th Decided on 15 May 2025 M/s Ajay Kumar Sood …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate, with M/s Shriyek Sharda and Anuj Bali, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral By way of this execution petition, the petitioner has sought the execution of the award dated 29.04.2015 as upheld in Arbitration Case No.62 of 2015, decided on 01.05.2017 as also H Arbitration Appeal No.1 of 2019, decided on 02.05.2019.

2. Now, the only issue left to be adjudicated is whether the execution petitioner is entitled for interest @18% per annum on the principal amount as well as interest component of pre pendente lite and pendente lite period or only on principal award amount. Otherwise save and accept for this particular issue, the award stands satisfied by the award debtor.

3. When the matter was listed in the Court on 03.07.2023, Hon’ble Coordinate Bench was pleased to pass the following order:-

“Learned Additional Advocate General submits that as per Award, DH/petitioner is entitled for simple interest @8% per annum on amount of Rs.35,24,2.53/- for the period of three years from the date of ReHference to the date of Award and simple interest @ 18% per annum for the period of three months after the date of Award to the actual date of realization.

Further that, according to instructions imparted to him, interest as granted, haso been calculated by the JD on principal amount in terms of the Award, but the DH/petitioner is claiming interest @18% per annum on the principal amount as well as interest component of pre- pendentelite and pendentelite period.

To justify the calculations made on behalf of the DH/petitioneru, learned counsel for the DH/petitioner has referred pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hyder Construction vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2015)

2 SCC 189.

Learned Additional Advocate General seeks time toC go through the same before further addressing the issue. On his request, matter is adjourned.

List during next week.”

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted gthat a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hyder i Consulting (UK) Limited versus Governor State of Orissa, (2015) 2 Supreme Cases 189, has been pleased to hold that Clause (a) of sub-section (7) of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that where an award is made for the payment of money, the Arbitral Tribunal may include interest in the “sum” for which the Award is made. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the present case in terms of the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the award amount as well as pre-pendente lite and pendente lite period, as awarded by the learned Arbitrator, by treating both these components to be “sum” and the interest i.e. payable i.e. interest for the post pendente lite period has to be paid on both the amounts.

5. On the other hand, learned fAdvocate General while drawing the attention of the Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Morgan Securities and Credits Private Limited versus Videocon Industries Limited (2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases 602, argued that though no doubt in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court being relied upon by the petitioner the “sum” is to include the award amount as well as interest but that is only if the sam e is expressly ordered in the award by the learned Arbitrator. Learned Advocate General while drawing the attention of the Court to the award in issue submitted that in this case there was no order passed by the learned Arbitrator that the award amount + pre- pendente lite and pendente lite interest shall form the “sum” and, theref