Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ***
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.46 of 2009 Between:
1. N ATIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION LTD., AND ANOTHER, RASHTHRIYA PRAYOJANA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN RAJA HOUSE, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI REP. BY GPA HOLDER I.E, V.R.REDDY, 2. T HE UNIT OFFICER NPCC LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM, PANTHULUGARI MEDA OLD GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. E KONDAIAH CONSTRUCTIONS AND 2 OTHERS, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI E. KONDAIAH REHABILITATION COLONY, NANDIPURA, VISAKHAPATNAM.
2. V ISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, UKKUNAGARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. S RI B V RANGA RAJU RET JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF A.P., ARBITRATOR R/O. 55-1-24/3, JAGANNADHARAJU NAGAR, VENKOJIPALEM, 4. E RLA KONDALA RAO, S/O. LATE E. KONDAIAH, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-313, CHAMADALA AND JALADANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
5. E RLA MALYADRI, S/O. LATE E. KONDAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-313, CHAMADALA AND JALADANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
6. E RLA ANKA RAO, S/O. LATE E. KONDAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-313, CHAMADALA AND JALADANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
7. E RLA HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O. LATE E. KONDAIAH, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-313, CHAMADALA AND JALADANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal Under Section_____against orders IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CMAMP 68 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 656 days in representing the CMASR.No.
5608/2006 IA NO: 2 OF 2008(CMAMP 69 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 673 days in payment of deficit court fee of Rs. 190/- CMA.SR.No. 5608/2006 IA NO: 3 OF 2008(CMAMP 70 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 25 days in filing CMASR.No. 5608 /2006 an IA NO: 4 OF 2008(CMAMP 235 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings in EP.No. 1 of 2007 in AOP .NO.572 of 2002 on the file of the VI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of CMA IA NO: 5 OF 2008(CMAMP 2599 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the order dated 26.1.2008 passed in CMAMP No.235/20087 in CMASR No.5608/2006 in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CMAMP 1095 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased expedite the hearing of the appeal by fixing an early date in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to expedite the hearing of the appeal by fixing an early date in the interest of justice, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to set aside the order of abatement of the Appeal in the interest of justice.
IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to bring the LRs/Petitioners of the Deceased 1st Respondent E.Kondaiah as Respondents 4 to 7 in the Appeal in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. C PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S
2. G RAMA GOPAL
3. A KRISHNAM RAJU Date of Judgment pronounced on: 09-12-2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No of the Judgment?
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR + CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.46 of 2009 % Dated: 09-12-2025 Between:
1. N ATIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION LTD., AND ANOTHER, RASHTHRIYA PRAYOJANA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN RAJA HOUSE, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI REP. BY GPA HOLDER I.E, V.R.REDDY, 2. T HE UNIT OFFICER NPCC LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM, PANTHULUGARI MEDA OLD GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. E KONDAIAH CONSTRUCTIONS AND 2 OTHERS, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI E. KONDAIAH REHABILITATION COLONY, NANDIPURA, VISAKHAPATNAM.
2. V ISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, UKKUNAGARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. S RI B V RANGA RAJU RET JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF A.P., ARBITRATOR R/O. 55-1-24/3, JAGANNADHARAJU NAGAR, VENKOJIPALEM, 4. E RLA KONDALA RAO, S/O. LATE E. KONDAIAH, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-313, CHAMADALA AND JALADANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
5. E RLA MALYADRI, S/O. LATE E. KONDAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-313, CHAMADALA AND JALADANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
6. E RLA ANKA RAO, S/O. LATE E. KONDAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-313, CHAMADALA AND JALADANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
7. E RLA HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O. LATE E. KONDAIAH, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-313, CHAMADALA AND JALADANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal Under Section_____against orders IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CMAMP 68 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 656 days in representing the CMASR.No.
5608/2006 IA NO: 2 OF 2008(CMAMP 69 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 673 days in payment of deficit court fee of Rs. 190/- CMA.SR.No. 5608/2006 IA NO: 3 OF 2008(CMAMP 70 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 25 days in filing CMASR.No. 5608 /2006 an IA NO: 4 OF 2008(CMAMP 235 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings in EP.No. 1 of 2007 in AOP .NO.572 of 2002 on the file of the VI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of CMA IA NO: 5 OF 2008(CMAMP 2599 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the order dated 26.1.2008 passed in CMAMP No.235/20087 in CMASR No.5608/2006 in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CMAMP 1095 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased expedite the hearing of the appeal by fixing an early date in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to expedite the hearing of the appeal by fixing an early date in the interest of justice, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to set aside the order of abatement of the Appeal in the interest of justice.
IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to bring the LRs/Petitioners of the Deceased 1st Respondent E.Kondaiah as Respondents 4 to 7 in the Appeal in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. C PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S
2. G RAMA GOPAL
3. A KRISHNAM RAJU GIST :
>HEAD NOTE: Cases referred:
1. [2024] 8 S.C.R. 113: 2024 INSC 587
2. (2015) 2 SCC 189 3. (2022) 4 SCC 116 4. (2010) 3 SCC 690 APHC010240132009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3529]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 46/2009 Between:
1. N ATIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION LTD., AND ANOTHER, RASHTHRIYA PRAYOJANA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN RAJA HOUSE, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI REP.
BY GPA HOLDER I.E, V.R.REDDY, 2. T HE UNIT OFFICER NPCC LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM, PANTHULUGARI MEDA OLD GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. E KONDAIAH CONSTRUCTIONS AND 2 OTHERS, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI E. KONDAIAH REHABILITATION COLONY, NANDIPURA, VISAKHAPATNAM.
2. V ISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, UKKUNAGARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. S RI B V RANGA RAJU RET JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF A.P., ARBITRATOR R/O. 55-1-24/3, JAGANNADHARAJU NAGAR, VENKOJIPALEM, 4. E RLA KONDALA RAO, S/O. LATE E. KONDAIAH, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-313, CHAMADALA AND JALADANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
5. E RLA MALYADRI, S/O. LATE E. KONDAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O.
D.NO.3-313, CHAMADALA AND JALADANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
6. E RLA ANKA RAO, S/O. LATE E. KONDAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O.
D.NO.3-313, CHAMADALA AND JALADANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
7. E RLA HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O. LATE E. KONDAIAH, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-313, CHAMADALA AND JALADANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal Under Section_____against orders IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CMAMP 68 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 656 days in representing the CMASR.No. 5608/2006 IA NO: 2 OF 2008(CMAMP 69 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 673 days in payment of deficit court fee of Rs. 190/-
CMA.SR.No. 5608/2006 IA NO: 3 OF 2008(CMAMP 70 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 25 days in filing CMASR.No. 5608 /2006 an IA NO: 4 OF 2008(CMAMP 235 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings in EP.No. 1 of 2007 in AOP .NO.572 of 2002 on the file of the VI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of CMA IA NO: 5 OF 2008(CMAMP 2599 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the order dated 26.1.2008 passed in CMAMP No.235/20087 in CMASR No.5608/2006 in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CMAMP 1095 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased expedite the hearing of the appeal by fixing an early date in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to expedite the hearing of the appeal by fixing an early date in the interest of justice, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to set aside the order of abatement of the Appeal in the interest of justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to bring the LRs/Petitioners of the Deceased 1st Respondent E.Kondaiah as Respondents 4 to 7 in the Appeal in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. C PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S
2. G RAMA GOPAL
3. A KRISHNAM RAJU
The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The appellants herein, had entered into an Agreement, dated 28.12.1994, for execution of certain works contracts, in relation to the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. Certain disputes had arisen between the parties, in relation to payment of enhanced consideration and compensation. These disputes were referred to Arbitration and resulted in an Award being passed by a learned Arbitrator, on 15.03.2002.
2. Aggrieved by the said Award, the appellants herein had moved A.O.P.No.572 of 2002 before the learned VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said petition came to be dismissed, on 21.10.2005.
3. Aggrieved by the said Order of Dismissal, the present Writ Appeal came to be filed.
4. Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, assails the Award, on the ground that, the learned Arbitrator had awarded interest on interest and the same is impermissible and the entire Award has to be set aside.
5. The case of the appellants is that, the learned Arbitrator had awarded compensation, in relation to claims 1 to 8 made by the respondents. Along with the Principal Award under these claims, the learned Arbitrator also awarded interest @ 15%, on the principal amounts from the date of completion of contract to the date of the award. The aforesaid compensation which included the principal amounts and the interest thereon, amounted to Rs.32,73,171.59 paise. The learned Arbitrator, after arriving at this figure, had further awarded interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of award till the date of realization.
6. Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. D. Khosla and Company V. The Union of India, [2024] 8 S.C.R. 113: 2024 INSC 587, to contend that the learned Arbitrator did not have any power or authority to award interest on interest and consequently, the Award would have to be set aside. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. V. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UHL Power Company Limited Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2022) 4 SCC 116, had held as follows:
“24. Neither the Act specifically empowers the Arbitrator or the court to award interest upon interest or compound interest nor there is any other provision which provides for grant of compound interest or interest upon interest. Even Section 34 CPC is silent in this regard whereas Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Interest Act specifically prohibits the same.”
7. Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, sought to take us through the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. V. State of Orissa and UHL Power Company Limited Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, to contend that there could be award of interest on interest by a learned Arbitrator, in Arbitration conducted under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
8. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. V. State of Orissa, while overruling the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. S.L. Arora & Co.,, (2010) 3 SCC 690, had held as follows:
“5……
“21. In the result , I am of the view that S.L. Arora case is wrongly decided in that it holds that a sum directed to be paid by an Arbitral Tribunal and the reference to the award on the substantive claim does not refer to interest pendente lite awarded on the “sum directed to be paid upon award” and that in the absence of any provision of interest upon interest in the contract, the Aribtral Trinunal does not have the power to award interest upon interest, or compound interest either for the pre-award period or for the post-awrd period. Parliament has the undoubted power to legisl
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
