SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 129

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (Jal) Through Its Director – Appellant
Versus
Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 1539 of 2019 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 13551 of 2013)
Decided On : 07-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate, Ms. Shaheen, Advocate, Mr. S.P. Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Advocate, Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocate, Ms. Raka Chatterjee, Advocate, Mr. Mohit Pandey, Advocate and Ms. Laxmi Kumari, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 31(7) bars award of interest unless specifically agreed to by the parties.

Headnote:(a) Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 31(7) – Award of interest – Section 31(7) barring award of interest if not specifically agreed by parties to the contract – Clauses 50 and 51 of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) prohibiting payment of any interest or damages on any account –Arbitral Tribunal awarding pendente lite and future interest – High Court rightly set aside the award to the extent of award of interest. (Para 5, 14, 16, 17)

       (2012) 12 SCC 10; (2009) 12 SCC 26; (1992) 1 SCC 508; (1955) 2 SCR 48 : AIR 1955 SC 468; (2010) 8 SCC 767; (2015) 9 SCC 695; (2017) 9 SCC 611; (2018) 9 SCC 266 – Relied upon

       (1996) 1 SCC 516; (1999) 1 SCC 63 – Distinguished

       (b) Interpretation of statute – Rule of construction – Ejusdem generis – Would apply only if there is distinct genus or a category – It is applicable when particular words pertaining to a clause, category or genus are followed by general words – Then, the general words are construed as limited to things of same kind as those specified - This rule reflects an attempt 'to reconcile incompatibility between the specific and general words – Keeping in view other rules of interpretation that all words in a statute are given effect if possible, that a statute is to be construed as a whole and that no words in a statute were presumed to be superfluous'. (Para 21)

       (1999) 6 SCC 275; (2015) 5 SCC 718 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The question arising in this appeal is whether the Arbitrators could award any interest in view of Clauses 50 and 51 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) which governed the terms between the parties. The High Court quashed the award limited to the interest that was awarded by the Arbitrators.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court rightly denied the interest.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein was awarded the contract under which it was to execute certain Works. Agreement in this behalf was signed on 18th December, 1998. Some disputes arose between the parties. Since the agreement contained an arbitration clause, two claims raised by the appellant were referred for arbitration. The arbitral tribunal was of three Arbitrators. This arbitration was under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act'). The majority award pronounced on October 10, 2010 allowed the two claims to certain extent. On the said claims awarded, the Arbitrators also granted interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when the arbitration was invoked, i.e., October 09, 2007, till 60 days after the award. Future interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of payment was also awarded.

3. Dispute which has travelled upto this Court pertains only to the question as to whether the Arbitrators could award any interest in view of Clauses 50 and 51 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) which governed the terms between the parties. The objections were filed before the High Court. A Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi passed the order dated November 15, 2011 quashing the award limited to the interest that was awarded by the Arbitrators. The appellant preferred intra-court appeal which has been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, thereby upholding the judgment of the Single Judge. The effect is that the High Court has held that no interest is payable as Clauses 50 and 51 of GCC bar the arbitrators from granting interest.

4. It may be pointed out that on interpreting Clauses 50 and 51 of the General Conditions of Contract, the view taken by the High Court is that these clauses categorically provide that no interest would be payable to the contractor on the money due to him. The said Clauses read as under:

"Clause 50.0 Interest on money due to the contractor

No omission on the part of the Engineer in charge to pay the amount due upon measurement or otherwise shall vitiate or make void the contract, nor shall the contractor be entitled to interest upon any guarantee or payments in arrears nor upon any balance which may on the final settlement of his account, be due to him.

Clause 51.0 No claim for delayed payment due to dispute etc.

No claim for interest or damage will be entertained or be payable by the corporation in respect of any amount or balance which may be lying with the corporation owing to nay dispute, different or misunderstanding between the parties or in respect of any delay or omission on the part of he Engineer in charge in making intermediate or final payments on in any other respect whatsoever."

The Award makes the following observations in this behalf:

"As seen from above, Clause 50.0 and 51.0 of the Contract deny interest on the Claimant's dues by the Respondent due to dispute etc. However as per above quoted judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the claim for interest can be considered by the Arbitration Tribunal."

Notwithstanding the same, the learned Arbitrators granted the interest by relying upon the law declared by this Court in Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta v. Engineers-De-Space-Age, (1996) 1 SCC 516 and following observations from the said judgment were quoted:

"...........In other words, according to their Lordships the arbitrator is expected to act and make his award in accordance with general law of the land but subject to an agreement, provided, the agreement is valid and legal. Lastly, it was pointed out that interest pendent like is not a matter of substantive law, interest for the period anterior to reference. Their Lordship concluded that when the agreement between the parties does not prohibit grant of interest and where a party claims interest and that dispute is referred to the arbitrator, he will have the power to award interest pedente lite for the simple reason that in su

























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top