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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Pradeep Nandrajog, Manmohan Singh, JJ.
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
THDC India Ltd. - Respondent
FAO (OS) No. 596 of 2011
Decided On : 14-12-2012




JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. Majority award dated October 10, 2010 dealt with two claims and if allowed, interest thereon. And as against Rs.38,75,887/prayed for under claim No.1 for reimbursement on account of fluctuations in foreign exchange rates in respect of construction equipment Rs.18,59,377/- has been allowed, and under claim No.2 in sum of Rs.35,17,760/- pertaining to supply of Micro Silica sum awarded is Rs.6,13,160/- ; and on the two amounts interest awarded is @ 10% per annum from date when arbitration was invoked i.e. October 9, 2007, till 60 days after the award and thereafter @ 18% per annum till when payment is made.

2. Objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd., now known as THDC India Ltd. concerned only the interest awarded by the learned Majority Arbitrators. Vide impugned order dated November 15, 2011, the objection has succeeded resulting in the majority award being set aside limited to the interest being awarded.

3. Two clauses under the contract between the parties, being Clause No.50 and Clause No.51 under the General Condition of Contract were the subject matter of consideration before the learned Arbitrators as also the learned Single Judge. The two clauses reads 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 any dispute, different or misunderstanding between the parties or in respect of any delay or omission on the part of the Engineer in charge in making intermediate or final payments on in any other respect whatsoever."

4. Para 24 of the award penned by the majority would reveal that the learned Arbitrators have relied upon the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (1996) 1 SCC 516 Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta v. Engineers-De-Space-Age, and before the learned Single Judge the appellant had principally relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (1999)1 SCC 63 State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra and Co. and the respondent had sought to urge that the decision in Engineers-De-Space-Age's (supra) pronounced by the Supreme Court was distinguished in various decisions reported as (2009) 12 SCC 26 Sayeed Ahmed & Co. v. State of U.P.; (2009) 16 SCC 504 UOI v. Saraswati Trading Agency; 2010(8) SCC 767 Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions v. Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Palgat; and (2011)7 SCC 279 UOI v. Krafters Engineering & Leasing Pvt. Ltd.

5. Noting that whereas there could be a debate under the Arbitration Act 1940 with respect to the powers of the Arbitrators to award pendente lite interest notwithstanding the contract prohibiting grant of interest, with reference to Sub Section 7 of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the learned Single Judge has found no scope for any debate, and on the premise that if a contract prohibits grant of interest with respect to any claim, the Arbitrator(s) cannot order payment of pendente lite or future interest. Thus holding, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to consider the two clauses to ascertain whether the two clauses prohibit interest to be paid on the two claims allowed.

6. Construing Clause 50 as referable to only ascertainable sums, the learned Single Judge has referred to the phrases `interest upon any guarantee' and `payments in arrears' to conclude that these phrases clearly contemplate `ascertained' sums.

7. Thereafter, the l

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