Amarsons Commercial Private Ltd vs Sentiss Pharma Private Limited

Court
Delhi High Court

$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 16 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010103062026
+ FAO (COMM) 77/2026
AMARSONS COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhik Chimni, Mr. Gurupal
Singh, Ms. Pranjal Abrol, Mr. Ayan
Dasgupta & Ms. Pallavi Garg, Advs.
versus

SENTISS PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Shiva Sambyal, Mr. Tarun Kumar
& Ms. Ragini Thareja, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY
J U D G M E N T
DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
REVIEW PET. 505/2026 [Review]
1. By way of present review petition, the review petitioner/appellant has
prayed that the order dated 21.09.2026 be reviewed, as there is an error
apparent on the face of record so far as the rate of interest mentioned in para
no.17 and 21 of the order is concerned.
2. Learned counsel submitted that while assisting the Court on
21.09.2026, when the matter was being argued, due to inadvertence, he had
referred to prevailing lending rate of interest of Private Sector Banks [relevant
for February 2022], whereas he ought to have cited the prevailing rate of
deposit of Private Sector Bank.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:27.10.2026
19:30:43
FAO (COMM) 77/2026 Page 1 of 5

3. He invited Courts attention towards Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1996’ ) and
explanation appended thereto and pointed out that a conjoint reading of clause
(b) and its explanation shows that the current rate of interest shall have the
same meaning as assigned to it under Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Interest
Act, 1978 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1978’ ) and submitted that if
current rate of interest as per Section 2(b) of the Act of 1978 is taken into
account, the same is maximum rate at which interest is paid by the bank on
deposit.
4. Having read the relevant provisions, learned counsel argued that the
rate of interest in the order under review ought to have been 7.16% (5.16% +
2%).
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that what

is being sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the review petitioner is,
beyond the scope of review. He argued that as a matter of fact, the Court had
dictated the order in open Court and referred to the rates as suggested rather
placed by the learned counsel for the review petitioner/appellant himself. And
therefore, the review petitioner/appellant or his counsel himself is to be
thanked, if there is any error and no review is permissible, as the Court had
passed the order based on the submissions made on behalf of the review
petitioner/appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner/appellant submitted that true
it is, that when the matter was argued, due to inadvertence, he relied upon
prevailing lending rates rather than the rates of deposit of the Private Banks,
as he did not thoroughly examine the issue of applicable rate of interest in the
backdrop of provisions of the Act of 1996 viz-a-viz the provisions of the Act
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:27.10.2026
19:30:43
FAO (COMM) 77/2026 Page 2 of 5

of 1978.
7. He submitted that in any case, on account of his fault, his client should
not suffer and should not be asked to pay more interest, than what is provided
under law.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. The issue before us is clear and the error is apparent. The error may be
on account of inadvertence or lack of knowledge of learned counsel of the
review petitioner/appellant, but counsel’s inadvertence should not lead to
injustice, when we have realised that what has been submitted today is,
correct on facts and in law.
10. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of Section
31(7)(b) of the Act of 1996 and Section 2(b) of the Act of 1978.
“ 31. Form and contents of arbitral award. —
(7) [(b) A sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award
shall, unless the award otherwise directs, carry interest
at the rate of two per cent. higher than the current rate
of interest prevalent on the date of award, from the date
of award to the date of payment.

Explanation. — The expression “current rate of
interest” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it
under clause (b) of section 2 of the Interest Act, 1978
(14 of 1978).]”

Section 2(b) of the Interest Act —
“The highest of the maximum rates at which interest
may be paid on different classes of deposits (other than
those maintained in savings account or those
maintained by charitable or religious institutions) by
different classes of scheduled banks" in accordance
with RBI directions under the Banking Regulation Act,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:27.10.2026
19:30:43
FAO (COMM) 77/2026 Page 3 of 5

1949.”

11. A conjoint reading of the above provisions leaves no manner of doubt
that the rate applicable as per Section 31(7)(b) of the Act of 1996 so far as
post arbitral award interest is concerned, should be 2% above the prevailing
rate of interest on deposits, being paid by the Scheduled Bank/Private Bank,
as the case may be.
12. Having come to above conclusion, we think, we should not stand on
ceremonies, as the error is writ large.
13. On perusal of the table, which the applicant has enclosed in the review
petition, we find that prevailing rate of interest on deposit by the Private
Banks was 5.16% and accordingly, the applicable rate of interest which the
appellant should pay on the amount of award should be 7.16% (5.16% + 2%).
14. The review petition is, therefore, allowed and our order dated

21.09.2026 is reviewed. The same shall stand modified in the manner that rate
of interest ‘ 11.71% ’ mentioned in para nos. 17 and 21, shall be read as
‘ 7.16% ’ and para no.13 shall stand substituted by the following para:-
“13. The award was passed in February, 2022, when
the rate of interest on deposits in Private Sector Banks
was 5.16%. This being the position, the rate of interest
should be 7.16% (5.16% + 2%) post the date of award,
i.e., 28.02.2022 till the date of payment.”

15. Also, the expression ‘ order dated 31.03.2026 ’ mentioned in fourth line
of para no.17 of our order dated 21.09.2026 shall be substituted by ‘ order
dated 31.01.2026 ’.
16. Ordered accordingly.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:27.10.2026
19:30:43
FAO (COMM) 77/2026 Page 4 of 5

CM APPL. 73142/2026 [Stay]
17. In view of the aforesaid order passed in REVIEW PET. 505/2026 , the
application for stay is disposed of as having become infructuous.

(DINESH MEHTA)
JUDGE


(ADITI CHOUDHARY)

JUDGE
OCTOBER 16, 2026/ sid
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:27.10.2026
19:30:43
FAO (COMM) 77/2026 Page 5 of 5