Rajiv Shakdher, J.

IA No. 2419/2019

1. The captioned interlocutory application represents objections filed on behalf of the defendant i.e. NHPC Limited (hereafter referred to as "NHPC") under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short "1940 Act").

2. The application was heard by me at some length on 04.04.2019. In the proceedings held on that date, I had recorded the submission of counsel for parties with regard to the main issue at hand. While I wanted to dispose of the matter on 04.04.2019, I was persuaded by Mr. Nath, who, appears for NHPC, to stand over the matter as he wanted to place on record certain judgments for my consideration.

2.1 Therefore, after recording the submission of counsel of both sides, and after setting out my prima facie view, I had stood over the matter till today i.e. 08.04.2019.

2.2 Thus, in order to avoid repetition, and for the sake of convenience, the relevant part of my order dated 04.04.2019 is extracted hereafter.

"2. These objections have been preferred by NHPC Limited company (NHPC), qua the award dated 09.02.2018, as clarified by the order dated 28.03.2018.

3. Upon notice being issued in CS(Comm.) 907/2018, the arbitral tribunal, concededly, filed the aforementioned award and the follow-up clarificatory order in this Court.

4. It is thereupon that NHPC preferred the instant objections via the captioned application.

5. The principal objection which NHPC raises with regard to the directions contained in the award dated 09.02.2018 pertains payment of interest.

5.1 This objection is pivoted on the provisions contained in Clause 49.5 of the General Conditions of Contract (in short "GCC").

6. It is the contention of Mr. Nath, Advocate, appearing on behalf of NHPC, that the arbitral tribunal could not have awarded interest as there is a bar in the said clause on the payment of interest with regard to the monies withheld and/or retained by NHPC.

7. Mr. Sawhney, who appears on behalf of non-applicant/plaintiff, contends otherwise.

7.1 Learned counsel submits that the bar obtains only if money was otherwise due and payable to the non-applicant/plaintiff.

8. According to Mr. Sawhney, since NHPC raised disputes qua the claims raised by the non-applicant/plaintiff, Clause 49.5 of the GCC would have no applicability.

8.1 In the alternative, Mr. Sawhney says even if the clause is construed to mean that it permits NHPC to mark a lien on the sums which the contractor claimed under the subject contract, the lien can hold and therefore, monies can be withheld and/or retained only against monies payable to NHPC in respect of any other contract obtaining between the parties. Learned counsel says that there are no sums payable to NHPC under any other contract.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. For the purpose of disposal of the objection raised by NHPC, one would have to examine the width and scope of Clause 49.5 of the GCC. Thus, for the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereafter:

"49.5..any sum of money due and payable to the contractor (including the security deposit returnable to him) under the contract may be withheld or retained by way of lien by the Engineer In charge or corporation against any claim of the corporation or such other persons or persons in respect of payment of a sum of money arising out of or under any other contract made by the contractor with the Engineer-in-charge or corporation or with such other person or persons.

The sum of money so withheld or retained under this clause by the Engineer-in-charge or Corporation will be kept withheld or retained as such by the Engineer-in-charge or Corporation or till his claim arising out of in the same contract or any other contract is either mutually settled or determined by the Arbitrator, if the contract is governed by the arbitration clause under the clause 55 or by the competent court hereinafter provided, as the case may be, and the contractor shall have no claim for interest or damages whatsoever on this a