SC: Externally Procured Parts Given For Assembly, Not Used in Manufacture, Not Liable to Excise Duty  ||  SC: Upholding Surendra Koli’s Conviction on Rejected Evidence Would Violate Articles 14 and 21  ||  SC: In Execution Petition, Decree-Holder Must Prove Violation by Judgment Debtor  ||  SC: Insurers Must Compensate Accident Victims Despite Policy Breach, Can Recover From Owner  ||  Kerala HC: Long-Term Posting of Same Police Officer at Sabarimala May Affect Transparency, Efficiency  ||  Delhi HC: Post-Dated Cheques Given as Security Attract Section 138 NI Act After Liability Arises  ||  MP High Court: Railways Liable for Deaths on Tracks if it Fails to Take Preventive Measures  ||  Ker HC: NDPS Case Stands Even if Contraband Listed in Ml, if Chemical Report Shows Equivalent Weight  ||  Kerala HC: Father’s Retirement Benefits Can Be Attached for Child Maintenance Despite S.60(1)(g) CPC  ||  Supreme Court: A Decree Declared 'Nullity' Can be Challenged at Any Stage, Including Execution    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved