Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2006 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (5) TMI 442 - SC - Companies LawWhether the award is contrary to the terms of contract and, therefore, no arbitrable dispute arose between the parties? Whether the award is in any way violative of the public policy? Whether the award is contrary to the substantive law in India, viz., Sections 55 and 73 of the Indian Contract Act? Whether the reasons are vitiated by perversity in evidence in contract? Whether adjudication of a claim has been made in respect whereof there was no dispute or difference? Whether the award is vitiated by internal contradictions? Held that:- The involvement of ONGC was necessary and if it is the accepted case of the parties that ONGC would not entertain any claim of BSCL in this behalf, a fortiori having regard to the tripartite agreement, the learned arbitrator could have no jurisdiction to determine the claim in favour of MII only because at one point of time BSCL had raised its own claim with ONGC. In other words, any reduction of the claim of the BSCL by ONGC had a direct nexus with the claim of MII. It was, therefore, not a case where ONGC was not involved in the matter. The exchange of letters categorically proves that MII had accepted that it would not be entitled to any extra amount in that behalf. MII by necessary implication accepted the said contention. The principle of acceptance sub-silentio shall also be attracted in the instant case. MII was, therefore, not entitled to raise a claim to the extent of fabrication on account of the increased charges for substitution of material used for WI-8, WI-9, WI-10 and N-3 Jackets and piles.To the aforementioned extent, the claim of MII was beyond the terms of the contract. The power of the arbitrator to award interest for pre-award period, interest pendent lite and interest post-award period is not in dispute. Section 31(7)(a) provides that the arbitral tribunal may award interest, at such rate as it deems reasonable, on the whole or any part of the money, for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which award is made, i.e., pre-award period. This, however, is subject to the agreement as regard the rate of interest on unpaid sum between the parties. The question as to whether interest would be paid on the whole or part of the amount or whether it should be awarded in the pre- award period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The arbitral tribunal in this behalf will have to exercise its discretion as regards (i) at what rate interest should be awarded; (ii) whether interest should be awarded on whole or part of the award money; and (iii) whether interest should be awarded for whole or any part of the pre-award period. The 1996 Act provides for award of 18% interest. The arbitrator in his wisdom has granted 10% interest both for the principal amount as also for the interim. By reason of the award, interest was awarded on the principal amount. An interest thereon was upto the date of award as also the future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In this case, given the long lapse of time, it will be in furtherance of justice to reduce the rate of interest to 7%.As regards certain other contentions, in view of the fact that the same relate to pure questions of fact and appreciation of evidence, we do not think it necessary to advert to the said contentions in the present case.
|