Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Period between award and law clarification - Cannot be excluded for interest calculation The Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) clarified that the benefits of solatium and interest, which are inherently compensatory under expropriation laws, cannot be denied based on the period after the award but before the law's clarification. The decision operates retrospectively, covering acquisitions from 1997 to 2015, and the benefits under Tarsem Singh are applicable to awards passed during this period, irrespective of the time of law clarification ["Eranna H.C. S/o Late Channappa vs Deputy Commissioner and Sole Arbitrator (Land Acquisition) Bengaluru - Karnataka"]. The Court emphasized that the law settled in Tarsem Singh cannot be challenged on the grounds that it opens a Pandora’s box or contravenes the doctrine of immutability, as it merely grants inherently embedded benefits ["Ashutosh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Kumbhaj Lal Agrawal vs National Highway Authority of India, through Chairman - Chhattisgarh"].
Interest and benefits are not to be excluded due to delay in law clarification Several judgments confirm that the period between the award and the clarification of law cannot be excluded when calculating interest or solatium. The Court has held that the beneficial nature of the Tarsem Singh ruling applies retrospectively, and landowners are entitled to interest from the date of possession or award, even if the law was clarified later ["Sadasivam vs The District collector -CUm - Arbitrator - Madras"]. The courts have also rejected the notion that a clarification should operate prospectively only, stating that doing so would nullify the relief intended by Tarsem Singh and would restore the pre-decision position, which the judgment aimed to rectify ["G UDAPATI SREERAMA MURTHY vs T HE ARBITRATOR DT COLLECTOR ELURU ANR - Andhra Pradesh"], ["G UDAPATI SREERAMA MURTHY vs THE ARBITRATOR DT COLLECTOR ELURU - Andhra Pradesh"], ["G UDAPATI SREERAMA MURTHY vs THE ARBITRATOR DT COLLECTOR ELURU ANR - Andhra Pradesh"], ["G UDAPATI SREERAMA MURTHY vs T HE ARBITRATOR DT COLLECTOR ELURU - Andhra Pradesh"], ["G UDAPATI SREERAMA MURTHY vs THE ARBITRATOR DT COLLECTOR ELURU ANR - Andhra Pradesh"], ["G UDAPATI SREERAMA MURTHY vs T HE ARBITRATOR DT COLLECTOR ELURU - Andhra Pradesh"].
Legal stance on retrospective operation and impact on past awards The Supreme Court has consistently held that the benefits of solatium and interest declared in Tarsem Singh are to be applied retrospectively, covering awards passed before the law clarification. The law as on the date of award remains binding, and the subsequent judgment provides a benefit that can be claimed for the period after the award but does not negate the validity of awards passed earlier ["Universal Construction Machinery and Equipment Limited VS National Highway Authority of India - Uttarakhand"], ["K.Alagammal vs The Union of India - Madras"]. The Court has also rejected attempts to treat pre- and post-Tarsem Singh awards as separate regimes, emphasizing the overarching goal of the decision to put an end to unequal treatment and ensure fair compensation retrospectively ["Satishbhai Viriyabhai Gamit vs Union Of India - Gujarat"].
Conclusion The period between the award and the clarification of law in Tarsem Singh cannot be excluded for the purpose of interest and solatium calculations. The Supreme Court’s decision is inherently beneficial and operates retrospectively, ensuring landowners receive interest and solatium for the entire period from possession or award date, regardless of when the law was clarified ["Eranna H.C. S/o Late Channappa vs Deputy Commissioner and Sole Arbitrator (Land Acquisition) Bengaluru - Karnataka"] ["Ashutosh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Kumbhaj Lal Agrawal vs National Highway Authority of India, through Chairman - Chhattisgarh"]. Attempts to restrict benefits to only post-clarification periods are contrary to the Court’s intent and would undermine the purpose of the judgment ["Sadasivam vs The District collector -CUm - Arbitrator - Madras"].
In arbitration proceedings, particularly those involving land acquisition under statutes like the National Highways Act, 1956, the calculation of interest on awarded amounts can significantly impact the final compensation received by claimants. A common contention arises: can the period between the date of the arbitral award and a subsequent clarification or interpretation of the law—such as the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Tarsem Singh—be excluded when computing interest under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? This question often surfaces in disputes over solatium and interest entitlements, where parties seek to limit liability for post-award periods. This post delves into the legal position, drawing from key judicial interpretations to provide clarity. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The issue at hand is straightforward yet pivotal: period between award and clarification of law in Tarsem Singh cannot be excluded for the purpose of interest. Claimants argue for full interest from the award date, while respondents may push for exclusions during clarification delays. Understanding this requires examining statutory provisions, Supreme Court precedents, and related rulings.
Generally, the period between the arbitral award and the issuance of a clarification by the arbitrator cannot be excluded from interest calculations under Section 31(7) of the 1996 Act. The law, particularly post-Tarsem Singh, does not support such exclusions. As clarified in relevant judgments, interest applies to the entire awarded amount, including pre-award periods, without carving out intervening times unless explicitly provided. Indore Development Authority VS Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. - 2020 5 Supreme 194
Section 33(1) empowers parties to request corrections or interpretations within 30 days of receiving the award, with extensions possible. Importantly, The language unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties signifies flexibility but does not indicate that the period between the award and clarification is to be excluded from interest calculations. North Delhi Municipal Corporation VS S. A. Builders Ltd. - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1197 Such processes integrate into the award, subjecting them to standard interest rules under Section 31(7).
In Tarsem Singh, the Supreme Court held that entitlements to solatium and interest operate retrospectively: the declaration of law regarding the entitlement to solatium and interest operates retrospectively, unless explicitly made prospective. Indore Development Authority VS Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. - 2020 5 Supreme 194 The judgment emphasized interest on the entire awarded amount, including pre-reference interest, from the award date. It addressed NHAI Act disparities, binding all courts: the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts and authorities in the country. Indore Development Authority VS Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. - 2020 5 Supreme 194
The broader purpose was to resolve and put quietus upon the quagmire created by Section 3J of the NHAI Act, ensuring no artificial exclusions. Indore Development Authority VS Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. - 2020 5 Supreme 194
Contentions for excluding award-to-clarification time lack statutory or precedential support. Tarsem Singh affirms computation on the full amount unless there is a clear legal basis for exclusion. No such basis exists here, as clarifications do not halt interest accrual. Indore Development Authority VS Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. - 2020 5 Supreme 194
While Tarsem Singh supports inclusion, nuances appear in related cases:
Limits on Retroactivity: In some instances, Tarsem Singh does not apply to arbitrations concluded before the judgment. However, since the arbitration in the instant case concluded on December 11, 2008, and the judgment in Tarsem Singh (supra) was delivered later on, the Appellant cannot claim solatium or interest on account of Tarsem Singh (supra). Savitri Devi VS Union Of India - 2024 Supreme(All) 1021 This highlights that final awards may escape retrospective claims to avoid chaos: If parties were allowed to reopen concluded arbitrations based on new judicial rulings, it would lead to a flood of claims. Vivek Nayak (Died) VS Arbitrator/Collector Aligarh - 2024 Supreme(All) 2160
Prospective Clarification Requests Denied: Attempts to limit Tarsem Singh prospectively fail. Regardless, the prayer in the instant Application expressly seeks clarification that the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) should be deemed to operate prospectively only... granting such clarification would effectively nullify the very relief that Tarsem Singh intended to provide. Union of India VS Tarsem Singh - 2025 Supreme(SC) 266 This reinforces retrospective parity, avoiding unjust classifications.
Patent Illegality and Remands: Awards ignoring key issues, like land valuation, may be set aside, but interest exclusions are not automatic. Courts stress limited interference unless patent illegality. Savitri Devi VS Union Of India - 2024 Supreme(All) 1021
Exclusion Principles Elsewhere: Time exclusions (e.g., under Limitation Act Section 14) require strict conditions and differ from interest computations: exclusion of time is different, and cannot be equated with condonation of delay. Laxmi Srinivasa R And P Boiled Rice Mill VS State Of Andhra Pradesh - 2022 Supreme(SC) 1164 Stays may exclude periods, but not routine clarifications. Teknow Consultants & Engineers Private Limited VS Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited - 2019 Supreme(Del) 1675
These cases illustrate that while exceptions exist (e.g., stays, concluded matters), standard clarifications do not justify interest exclusions.
The law firmly positions against excluding the award-to-clarification period for interest, aligning with Tarsem Singh's equity goals. This ensures claimants receive statutory benefits without artificial gaps, promoting fairness in arbitration. Key takeaway: Interest under Section 31(7) typically runs continuously unless statutorily or judicially interrupted.
This analysis underscores the Arbitration Act's intent for prompt, comprehensive relief.
#TarsemSingh #ArbitrationLaw #InterestCalculation
The decision of the Apex Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) no doubt covers acquisition made under the said Act during the period 1997 to 01.01.2015 and the decision declared 3J of the NH Act, 1956 unconstitutional and extended the excluded solatium and interest to the eligible land owners, however ... The petitioner cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to reopen a concluded award after more than a decade. ... Hence, Tarsem Singh operates ret....
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has placed his strong reliance in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra) in which it has been held that award cannot be treated as a decision; it is in law an offer or tender of the compensation determined by the Collector ... “Regardless, the prayer in the instant Application expressly seeks clarification that the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) should be deemed to operate prospectively only. ... to pass ....
amount of solatium and interest in accordance with the directions issued in Tarsem Singh case. ... The law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at a later point of time cannot become a cause of action for the petitioner to challenge an earlier award that was passed on 30.12.2016. ... 10.As held by the Apex Court in the clarification order, the grant of solatium or interest which are inherently embedded as a compensatory benefit to the land owners, w....
However, since the arbitration in the instant case concluded on December 11, 2008, and the judgment in Tarsem Singh (supra) was delivered later on, the Appellant cannot claim solatium or interest on account of Tarsem Singh (supra). ... In light of the above, Issue No. 2 is answered as follows: “Given that the Arbitration in the instant case concluded on December 11, 2008 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Tarsem Singh (supra) was delivered l....
The result is that it is not possible for us to create a class of two regimes of Pre-Tarsem Singh and Post-Tarsem Singh, i.e. the landholders cannot be classified in two categories, (i) of those who had approached this Court in the Pre- Tarsem Singh period challenging Section 3J ... The entire exercise of computation and declaration of the additional award in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in #HL_STAR....
Regardless, the prayer in the instant Application expressly seeks clarification that the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) should be deemed to operate prospectively only. ... d) The clarification sought through this Application, if entertained, would effectively amount to a review of the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra). ... We say so for the reason that the broader purpose behind Tarsem Singh (supra) was to resolve and put quietus ....
Tarsem Singh & Ors. ... Tarsem Singh & Ors, [2025 SCC online SC 235] held as follows: - Paragraph No.17:- Regardless, the prayer in the instant Application expressly seeks clarification that the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) should be deemed to operate prospectively only. ... cannot be raised at a later stage. ... Paragraph No.18:- We say so for the reason that the broader purpose behind Tarsem Singh#....
Tarsem Singh & Ors. ... Tarsem Singh & Ors, [2025 SCC online SC 235] held as follows: - Paragraph No.17:- Regardless, the prayer in the instant Application expressly seeks clarification that the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) should be deemed to operate prospectively only. ... cannot be raised at a later stage. ... Paragraph No.18:- We say so for the reason that the broader purpose behind Tarsem Singh#....
Tarsem Singh & Ors. ... Tarsem Singh & Ors, [2025 SCC online SC 235] held as follows: - Paragraph No.17:- Regardless, the prayer in the instant Application expressly seeks clarification that the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) should be deemed to operate prospectively only. ... cannot be raised at a later stage. ... Paragraph No.18:- We say so for the reason that the broader purpose behind Tarsem Singh#....
Tarsem Singh & Ors. ... Tarsem Singh & Ors, [2025 SCC online SC 235] held as follows: - Paragraph No.17:- Regardless, the prayer in the instant Application expressly seeks clarification that the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) should be deemed to operate prospectively only. ... cannot be raised at a later stage. ... Paragraph No.18:- We say so for the reason that the broader purpose behind Tarsem Singh#....
17. Therefore, the case-laws cited on behalf of the appellants are of no aid to them. 28. If parties were allowed to reopen concluded arbitrations based on new judicial rulings, it would lead to a flood of claims seeking to modify or overturn arbitral awards. Moreover, the retroactive application of judicial decisions to arbitral awards would create legal and procedural chaos. Arbitrators make decisions based on the legal framework and precedents available at the time of the arbitration. However, applying these guidelines retroactively to arbitrations that concluded prior to the judgment wou....
1[See Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 169 and Kalpraj Dharamshi and Anr. Vs. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited and Anr.,] Of course for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the conditions stipulated in Section 14 have to be satisfied. The period once excluded, cannot be counted for the purpose of computing the period for which delay can be condoned. Exclusion of time is different, and cannot be equated with condonation of delay.
In the said circumstances, this period between the grant of the stay order up to the stage of surrender made to the challenge of the notification i.e. 25.3.2019 has to be excluded for the purpose of award of interest. This would be only in respect of those petitioners who had given their consent and on whose behalf the surrender to the challenge had been made on 25.3.2019 before this Court. The petitioners would however be entitled for interest after deductions as aforesaid. The petitioners had given up their challenge to the acquisition notification as is recorded in the o....
The consolidated amount of the award after being re-calculated shall carry, as provided in the award, interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the award till the date of payment. In working out the amount of interest for the post-award period, the period(s) for which the operation of the award was stayed by the court would be excluded."
The appellant No. 1 has not moved the Court for setting aside the ex parte decree but it was at the instance of her son who is appellant No. 2, in this appeal. So the period spent in that proceeding cannot be excluded for the purpose of filing the appeal. Also for that period, the appellants cannot be said to have been prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. Thus the benefit of Section 14 of the Act cannot be reaped in this case for saving the delay in filing the appeal.
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
