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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more