Karnataka High Court: PTCL Act Can Apply Again if Restored Land is Later Transferred  ||  Delhi HC: Courier Agency Liable for Penalty if it Fails to Report Suspicious Consignment to Customs  ||  Delhi HC Bars Rupa from Selling 'Coat-Pocket' Constitution Edition in EBC-Like Trade Dress  ||  Delhi HC Protects Telugu Actor Nagarjuna’s Rights, Bars Unauthorized Use of Name & Image  ||  Delhi HC Rejects NEET-UG Candidate’s Plea for OMR Re-Checking, Cites No Arbitrariness  ||  MP HC Denies Bail to Lawyer, Accused of Minor Rape, Trafficking  ||  Rajasthan HC Raises Rs.3.15L Compensation, Values Homemaker’s Role in Accident Case  ||  SC: HC Judge Can't Deny Referring Bail Plea to Previous Judge Due to Roster Change  ||  SC: Trial Judge Can't Decline to Decide Case Citing Expiry of Timeline Set by Supreme Court  ||  Delhi High Court: UNHCR Refugee Card Not a Substitute for Valid Visa    

North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Suresh Singhal - (High Court of Delhi) (02 Jun 2023)

Interest is compensatory in nature and is parasitic on the principal amount

MANU/DE/3874/2023

Arbitration

The present appeal has been insinuated under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking setting aside of the judgment whereby objections filed by the Appellant were dismissed and the Arbitral Award was upheld.

The scope of interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is narrow. Before interfering with an Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, which in fact has been concurred with by the First Appellate Court, this Court shall circumspect and refrain from reassessment or re-examination of the merits of the case, as though it were a Court of Appeal against the Award.

In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant while pressing the contention relating to non-completion of work extensively relied upon the Measurement Book ('MB'). Admittedly, the entire MB was not placed before the learned Tribunal. Though learned counsel while referring to the MB contended that the respondent had accepted the Bill as well as the measurements on 05.11.2007 and again on 11.12.2007, a reading of the said entry would show that the same was a running bill and not the final bill. It is also worthwhile to note that the impugned order records that the appellant failed to lead any evidence before the Tribunal. Considering the narrow scope of Section 37 of the Act, this Court finds no merit in the contention raised by the appellant and the same is rejected.

The power of Arbitral Tribunal to award interest for all the three periods namely, pre-reference, pendente-lite and post award, is settled in terms of the decision of Supreme Court in Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd v. ONGC that interest is compensatory in nature and is parasitic on the principal amount. The Tribunal noted that the underlying Agreement did not bar even the parties to claim interest.

In view thereof, the award of interest by the Arbitral Tribunal is neither contrary to the terms of contract nor is in breach of Section 31(7). The impugned Award is upheld. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : AWARD   INTEREST   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved