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

2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 111488

SUPREME COURT
P.S. Narasimha, J
G & T BecField Drilling Services (P) Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
Arb. A 3/2007 | Misc. Arb Case No.26 of 2005



The arbitral tribunal can award pendente lite interest unless expressly barred by the agreement between the parties.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 31(7), 34, and 37 - Arbitral award affording interest - Individual claims encompassing amounts and awards detailed - Clause 18.1 of the agreement does not bar pendente lite interest; it governs delayed payments and disputed claims without restricting authority of the tribunal to grant interest - Courts affirm that where the contract is silent, tribunals may award interest by default. (Paras 12, 26)

(B) Arbitral tribunal’s discretion on interest - The power of the arbitral tribunal to award interest is recognized provided such awards comply with the agreement between the parties - The court finds the interest awarded was lawful, affirmed being less than statutory rates. (Paras 11, 28)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a judgment permitting an appeal against a District Judge's order that nullified an arbitral award, which had affirmed amounts due under various invoices without interest. The High Court reinstated the arbitral tribunal’s decision which included a stipulation for the award of interest.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that Clause 18.1 does not prohibit the award of pendente lite interest; thus, the tribunal rightfully exercised its discretion to confer interest on amounts due from a specified date.

Issues: The primary question was whether the clause within the agreement forbids the imposition of pendente lite interest.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the arbitral tribunal maintains the jurisdiction to award interest unless expressly barred by the terms of the contract, asserting that merely prohibiting interest on delayed payments does not imply a prohibition on awarding pendente lite interest.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. appeal and summary of the judgment. (Para 1 , 1 , 2)
2. details on the initial arbitral award and lower court ruling. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. arguments from both parties on interest awards. (Para 8 , 9)
4. discussion on interest award and relevant legal principles. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. conclusion on the authority concerning interest in arbitration. (Para 20 , 26)
6. final decision on the appeal. (Para 27)

1. Leave granted. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court (The High Court) dated 08/03/2019, whereby the appeal (i.e., Arb. A 3/2007) of the respondent, under S.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act), was allowed, the judgment and order of the District Judge, Sivasagar, dated 15/11/2007, in Misc. Arb Case No.26 of 2005, under S.34 of 1996 Act, was set aside and the arbitral award dated 21/11/2004 was affirmed.

FACTS

2. Facts relevant for deciding this appeal are that the appellant suffered an arbitral award, dated 21/11/2004, passed by a three member arbitral tribunal, which directed as follows:
"1. Preliminary objection as to maintainability of the present arbitration proceeding raised on behalf of the respondent ONGC, is rejected.
2(i) Claim No.2 relating to the 2nd invoice for dollar 20,729.17 being the outstanding balance is allowed rejecting the claim for interest thereon.
2(ii) Claim No.3 in respect of invoice No.3 for dollar 1,26,536.44 being unpaid balance is allowed without interest.
2(iii) Claim No.4 in respect of invoice No.4 for dollar 30,1401.05 being outstanding balance is allowed. Claim for interest is, however, rejected.
2(iv) Claim No.5 in respect of invoice No.5 for dollar 14,321.68 being the outstanding balance is allowed without interest.
2(v) Claim No.6 in respect of invoice No.6 of dollar 1,67,960.43 being outstanding balance is allowed but no interest is allowed.
2(vi) Claim No.7 in relation to invoice No.7 for dollar 87,523.37 being the unpaid balance is allowed and the claim for interest on the said amount is disallowed.
2(vii) Claim No.8 refers to invoice No.8 for dollar 60,000 is allowed without interest.
2(viii) Claim No.9 in respect of invoice No.9 for dollar 78,750 being 75% of the tools lost in hole is allowed without any interest. 2(ix) Claim No.10 vide invoice No.10 for dollar 15,000 in respect of charges for demobilization is allowed without any interest.
2(x) Claim for performance - bond amount of dollar 55,050 is allowed as the said sum was deducted improperly without any justification.
3. Accordingly, an award for the total amount of dollar 6,56,272.34 is passed in favour of the Claimant G & T BecField Drilling Services (P) Ltd against the Respondent, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd..
4. The said sum will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum on and from 12/12/1998, the date when the statement of claim was affirmed, till recovery of the said amount and an Award for interest on the said amount is made accordingly.
5. The claimant will be entitled to Costs of the Proceeding assessed at Rs.5 (five) lakhs only from the Respondent, ONGC, and an Award for Rs.5 (five) lakhs for Costs is accordingly passed. Counter - Claims are dismissed.
Sd/- 1 .....; 2 ......; 3 .... Dt/- 21/11/2004"












3. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant filed an application (i.e., Misc. (Arbitration) Case no.26 of 2005), under S.34 of 1996 Act, for setting aside the award by taking various pleas including the one that clause 18.1 of the agreement does not allow payment of interest on the claim.

4. The District Judge allowed the application and set aside the award, vide order dated 15.11.2007, inter alia, on two grounds: (a) the award is non - reasoned, therefore, violates the mandate of S.31(3) of 1996 Act; and (b) objection under S.16(2) was neither rejected prior to proceeding further, nor considered by the arbitral tribunal at the time of making final award.

5. Aggrieved therewith, respondent filed an appeal before the High Court under S.37(1)(c) of 1996 Act, which w

























































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