Skip to main content

Arbitrator has to abide by the contract while dealing with pendente lite interest

In GARG BUILDERS vs BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, appeal was filed against Order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, resulting in denial of pendente lite interest on the award amount to the appellant.

The appellant as project contractors had a dispute with the Respondents which was placed before the Arbitrator. Learned Arbitrator after hearing the contentions of both the parties concluded that there is no prohibition in the contract about payment of interest for the pre­suit, pendente lite and future period. The Respondents appeal before the Delhi High Court that the learned Arbitrator being creature of the arbitration agreement travelled beyond the terms of the contract in awarding pendente lite interest on the award amount as the same was expressly barred in terms of the contract. The single judge concluded that As stated earlier, in terms of Section 31(7)(a) of the Act, the power of the arbitral tribunal to award pre award interest is contingent to the parties not agreeing to the contrary. Pre­award interest includes both pre­ reference interest as well as pendente lite interest. Thus, the conclusion of the Arbitrator that award of pendente lite interest was not prescribed by clause 17 of the Agreement is not sustainable. Division Bench agreed.

On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the law relating to award of pendente lite interest by Arbitrator under the 1996 Act is no longer res integra. The provisions of the 1996 Act under Section 31(7)(a), give paramount importance to the contract entered into between the parties and categorically restricts the power of an arbitrator to award pre­reference and pendente lite interest when the parties themselves have agreed to the contrary. If the contract prohibits pre­reference and pendente lite interest, the arbitrator cannot award interest for the said period.

It is pertinent to note that interest payments are governed in general by the Interest Act, 1978 in addition to the specific statutes that govern an impugned matter. Section 2 (a) of the Interest Act defines a “Court” which includes both a Tribunal and an Arbitrator. In turn, Section 3 allows a “Court” to grant interest at prevailing interest rates in various cases. The provisions of Section 3 (3) of the Interest Act, 1978 explicitly allows the parties to waive their claim to an interest by virtue of an agreement. Section 3(3)(a)(ii) states that the Interest Act will not apply to situations where the payment of interest is “barred by virtue of an express agreement”.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

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