Skip to main content

Arbitrator cannot award interest when expressly barred

In a recent judgment Union of India Vs. M/s. Ambica Construction, the issue raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in regard to the power of the Arbitrator to award pendente lite interest when contract contains bar for grant of interest in a case covered by the Arbitration Act, 1940 . A Division Bench of this Court had doubted the correctness of the decisions in Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta v. Engineers-De-Space-Age (1996) and Madnani Construction Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Others (2010).

In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & Ors. v. G.C. Roy (1992) and Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa & Ors. v. N.C. Budharaj (D) by L.Rs. & Ors. (2001) which held that the Arbitrator had the jurisdiction and authority to award interest for pre-reference period, pendente lite and future period if there was no express bar in the contract regarding award of interest. A doubt was expressed about the correctness of the decision in Engineers-De- Space Age (supra) in Sayeed Ahmed & Co. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2009) 12 SCC 26 and Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions v. Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Palghat & Ors. (2010). Hence the matter had been referred to a larger Bench for decision.

The Hon'ble court went on to state -

Thus, our answer to the reference is that if contract expressly bars award of interest pendente
lite, the same cannot be awarded by the Arbitrator. We also make it clear that the bar to award
interest on delayed payment by itself will not be readily inferred as express bar to award interest pendente lite by the Arbitral Tribunal, as ouster of power of Arbitrator has to be considered on
various relevant aspects referred to in the decisions of this Court, it would be for the Division Bench
to consider the case on merits. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more