TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder claim no.10 and the Court came to the correct conclusion that such aspect of the award could not be interfered with. The award of pendente lite interest under claim nos. 12 and 13 in the award impugned before the Single Bench was liable to be set aside in its entirety - the award of post-award interest is not interfered with since that is within the exclusive domain of the arbitrator. - GA No.1489 of 2018, GA No.1246 of 2018, APO No.156 of 2018 In AP No.423 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2018 - Sanjib Banerjee And Abhijit Gangopadhyay, JJ. Appearance: Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh, Mr. Amitava Ghosh, Mr. Navojit Mukherjee, Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Adv. JUDGMENT In view of the good grounds shown, the delay of about 145 days in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it must be said that such grounds of challenge were abandoned or are deemed to have been abandoned in course of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act as would be evident from the second paragraph of the judgment and order impugned dated November 14, 2017: Although, various grounds are taken in the said application but during argument, Mr. Partha Sarathi Bose, learned Senior Sounsel representing the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner would challenge the award in so far as the Claim Nos.9, 10, 12 and 13 are allowed. The appellant contends that the appellant had taken several grounds and had not issued any instructions to counsel to abandon any of the grounds. In such circumstances, the appellant submits that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned, to the effect that only four grounds were canvassed, is accepted as the basis of the challenge and the present matter considered in such perspective. The challenge before the Single Bench, as noticed above, was confined to the award made in respect of claim nos. 9, 10, 12 and 13. The Single Bench found that the award on account of idle labour and the like under claim no.9 was impermissible in view of a clause in the contract. There is no challenge by the respondent herein to such finding. Accordingly, such part of the order impugned need not be looked at. As far as the challenge to the award made under claim no.10 is concerned, the Court found that there was no clause in the contract that prohibited such aspect of the award. On s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 2017 SC 2586 (Ambica Construction vs. Union of India). The Single Bench also referred to an unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court of July 24, 2017 passed in APO No.228 of 2017 (Venus Engineering Private Limited vs. Union of India). In the Ambica Construction judgment of 2016, a question was posed as to whether, despite a clause in the agreement providing that no interest would be paid, the arbitral tribunal had any authority to award pendente lite interest. The question arose in the context of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the question was answered at paragraph 34 of the judgment in Ambica Construction (2016) to the effect that unless the agreement expressly barred the award of interest pendente lite by the arbitral tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es on the question of interest, unless a clause in the agreement expressly denuded the arbitrator of authority in such regard, the mere agreement between the parties that no interest would be paid would not affect the power of the arbitrator to grant pendente lite interest. The same rule is completely inapplicable in respect of the 1996 Act by virtue of the opening words in Clause 31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act. Thus, it was held in Chittaranjan Maity that the rule enunciated at paragraph 34 of Ambica Construction (2016) could not be imported into a matter governed by the 1996 Act. A feeble argument is sought to be made on behalf of the respondent herein that it is apparent from the judgment in Ambica Construction (2017) that it was rendered o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lite interest if the agreement between the parties prohibits the same, albeit such prohibition not expressly referring to the authority of the arbitrator. In other words, the rule recognised at paragraph 34 of Ambica Construction (2016) is not applicable to the situation covered by the 1996 Act and such rule has to be confined to the 1940 Act. For the reasons aforesaid, the award of pendente lite interest under claim nos. 12 and 13 in the award impugned before the Single Bench was liable to be set aside in its entirety. The judgment and order impugned dated November 14, 2017 is modified accordingly by setting aside the award of pendente lite interest by the arbitrator. However, the award of post-award interest is not interfered with sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
