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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more