Decretal interest on an arbitral award runs until the amount becomes releasable, not until actual release from court custody.

An arbitral award carrying interest till payment, once the Section 34 challenge failed, had to be executed as a decree according to its terms. Filing execution proceedings did not stop decretal interest, and attachment of monies was only a securing device, not payment to the decree holder. Applying Order 21 Rule 1 CPC, interest ceases when the amount is deposited in court with notice or otherwise becomes releasable to the decree holder, not on the date of actual disbursement. The decree holder was therefore entitled to interest only until 6 January 2009, when the amount became releasable, and not until 15 January 2009, when release was made.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in execution of an arbitral award carrying interest till payment, the decree holder was entitled to interest up to the date of filing of execution, up to the date of attachment and receipt of monies in court, or only up to the date when the amount became releasable to the decree holder.

Analysis: The award, having attained finality after dismissal of the Section 34 challenge, had the force of a decree and had to be executed as drawn. Filing of execution proceedings did not stop the running of decretal interest, because the decree was for interest till payment and not till the filing of execution. Attachment of monies in execution was only a mode of securing the amount and did not amount to payment to the decree holder. By contrast, Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shows that where money is deposited in court with notice to the decree holder, interest ceases from the date of such notice, because the decree holder can then withdraw the amount. Applying that principle, the decisive point was not the actual release date but the date on which the attached monies became releasable to the decree holder after objections were decided.

Conclusion: The decree holder was entitled to interest till 6 January 2009, when the amount became releasable, and not till 15 January 2009 when the actual release was made. The petitioner succeeded to that extent and the execution was satisfied after directions for payment of the additional amount and refund of the balance, if any.

---