Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

Union of India (UOI) v. Ambica Construction - (Supreme Court) (16 Mar 2016)

Contract must explicitly bar pendente lite interest to prevent arbitral award

MANU/SC/0309/2016

Arbitration

An Arbitrator cannot award interest pendente lite if the same is barred expressly by contract. The Supreme Court distinguished an explicit contractual provision such as this from a bar to award interest on delayed payment, which by itself would not preclude the Arbitrator’s authority. It added, “award of pendente lite interest inter alia must depend upon the overall intention of the agreement and what is expressly excluded.”

Relevant : State of Orissa v. B.N. Agarwalla MANU/SC/0204/1997 Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited and Anr. v. Jai Prakash Associates Limited MANU/SC/0806/2012 Section 31 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Tags : ARBITRATION   INTEREST   AWARD   PENDENTE LITE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved