HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5636 of 2015 Date: 10.06.2022 Between :

Sri P.Bhaskara Rao s/o. late P.Krishnaiah, Aged 67 years, r/o.Block-A, Flat No.A-501, Fortune Towers, Madhapur, Hyderabad and another.

.... Petitioner/

Decree-Holders and M/s. Lodha Healthy Constructions &

Developers Private Limited (LHCPL), having its Office at No.216, Shah & Nagar Industrial Estate, Dr. E.Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai, rep.by its Managing Director, also having its Regional Office at East Bolock, Eden Square, KPHB Road, Near Hi-tech City, MMTS Station, Hyderabad.

.... Respondent/ Judgment-debtor This Court made the following :

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5636 of 2015 ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)

Heard Mr. Y.Ratnakar, learned counsel for the petitioners/

Decree-holders and Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondent /Judgment-debtor.

2. This Revision is preferred by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2015 passed in E.P.No.14 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in Arbitration Award dated 15.06.2013 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

3. The judgment debtor has taken up construction of residential apartment called Belmont in the Lodha Bellezza complex. The decree holder had purchased flat having carpet area of 3200 sq.ft. along with three car parkings for a total consideration of Rs.2,42,30,799/-. While so, a dispute arose between the parties that even after accepting the entire sale consideration respondent has not delivered the possession of the flat in time. Hence, the dispute has been referred to the learned Sole Arbitrator.

4. The learned Sole Arbitrator having followed due process passed award dated 15.06.2013 directing the judgement debtor to refund the entire sale consideration that was paid by the decree holders with interest at 9% p.a calculated from the date of receipt of the respective amounts in instalments, within a period of three months from the date of passing of the award.

5. Thereafter, Decree-holders filed Execution Petition vide No.14 of 2014 in O.P.No.1940 of 2013 before the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for enforcement of the said Arbitration award dated 15.06.2013. The said petition was ordered on 19.10.2015. The Execution Court considered two aspects. First on claim to pay interest on interest awarded by the Arbitrator on principal amount and second on interest at the rate of 18% post-award. The Execution Court rejected on the first aspect and granted relief to decree-holder on second aspect directing Judgment- Debtor to pay interest @ 18% from 14.09.2013 to

10.07.2015.

6. Aggrieved by the order in E.P.No.14 of 2014 to the extent of directing Judgment-debtors to pay 18% interest, the JDRs preferred Civil Revision Petition No.4904 of 2015 before this Court. The same was dismissed by order dated

26.11.2015.

7. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/Decree-holders against denying interest on interest portion of sum awarded by the Arbitrator.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the Execution Court erred in not awarding interest @ 18 % per annum on the sum awarded by the Arbitrator including interest up to 13.09.2013. Hence, the post-award interest after 13.09.2013 till the date of payment has to be calculated at 18% per annum on the sum directed to be paid by the Arbitrator which is the principal amount plus the pre-award interest for which the award is made; and that the Tribunal erred in not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. Vs. Governor, State of Orissa1 for calculating the payment of post-

award interest.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator makes it abundantly clear that only 9% per annum interest has to be calcu