9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain work of construction of middle income group houses at Pitam Pura, New Delhi to the appellant and entered into a contract with him. Differences and disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of the contract on 1.4.1984, when a reference to arbitration was sought by the appellant and in terms of Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract, the same were referred to arbitration of the second respondent. The arbitrator entered upon the reference on 8.2.1985. He made an award on 15.7.1987. The award together with the proceedings was filed in the court by the learned arbitrator. The award was substantially in favour of the appellant. The arbitrator also awarded 12% simple interest on the amount awarded from 1.4.1984 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant submitted that the division bench fell in error in interpreting the judgment in G.C. Roy's case (supra) to have laid down that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award interest from 1.4.1984 to 8.2.1985 (pre-reference period) because no such proposition of law was either under consideration or decided in G.C. Roy's case (supra). In our opinion, the grievance projected by Dr. Singhvi is well founded. In Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Balimela And Others Vs. Abhaduta Jena & Others (1988 (1) SCC, 418), a three Judge Bench of this Court while dealing with pre-reference interest observed : "Out of the remaining cases, we find that in all cases except two (Civil Appeal Nos.6019-22 of 1983 and Civil Appeal No. 2257 of 1984, the refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Constitution Bench had been necessitated only for deciding the question whether the decision in Jena's case was correct in so far as it held that arbitrator had no power to award interest pendente lite. On a doubt being raised whether the Constitution Bench in G.C. Roy's case had over-ruled the law laid down in Jena's case relating to the power of the arbitrator to award interest for the prereference period in the post Interest Act, 1978 era, the position was clarified by a three Judge Bench in Jugal Kishore Prabhatilal Sharma & Ors. Vs. Vijayendra Prabhatilal Sharma & Anr. [1993 (1) SCC 114], wherein it was specifically held that the decision in G.C. Roy's case was concerned only with the power of arbitrator to award interest pendente-li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1978 came into force with effect from August 19, 1981)." Thus, the law is now well settled that the arbitrator has the power and jurisdiction to grant pre-reference interest in references made after the coming into force of the Interest Act, 1978. The division Bench of the High Court was thus clearly in error in holding that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award interest from 1.4.84 till 8.2.1985 (pre-reference period ) in the post Interest Act, 1978 era. So far as the grievance of the appellant pertaining to the dis-allowance of the claim of Rs. 23,685/- under Clauses 1, 3 & 4 is concerned, we do not find any error to have been committed by the High Court. The above view of the division Bench therefore, cannot be sustained. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
