TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd., now known as THDC India Ltd. concerned only the interest awarded by the learned Majority Arbitrators. Vide impugned order dated November 15, 2011, the objection has succeeded resulting in the majority award being set aside limited to the interest being awarded. 3. Two clauses under the contract between the parties, being Clause No.50 and Clause No.51 under the General Condition of Contract were the subject matter of consideration before the learned Arbitrators as also the learned Single Judge. The two clauses reads as under:- Clause 50.0 Interest on money due to the contractor No omission on the part of the Engineer in charge to pay the amount due upon measurement or otherwise shall vitiate or make void the contract, nor shall the contractor be entitled to interest upon any guarantee or payments in arrears nor upon any balance which may on the final settlement of his account, be due to him. Clause 51.0 No claim for delayed payment due to dispute etc. No claim for interest or damage will be entertained or be payable by the corporation in respect of any amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said clause prohibits payment of interest on any amount not paid on account of a dispute or a difference. The learned Single Judge has thereafter contrasted the language of Clause 1.9 of the contract considered by the Supreme Court in Harish Chandra s (supra) and has noted that the phrase or be payable in Clause 51 of the instant contract was missing in Clause 1.9 of the contract considered by the Supreme Court in Harish Chandra 's case (supra). The learned Single Judge has also found that the said decision was considering the matter under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The learned Single Judge has thereafter noted that the decision relied upon by the appellant in Engineers-De- Space-Age s case (supra) was held to be no longer good law by the Supreme Court in Sayeed Ahmed s case (supra). The learned Single Judge has thereafter noted the other decision relied upon by the respondent and has concluded the opinion against the appellant setting aside the award insofar interest was awarded. 8. It was urged before us by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that Clause 1.9 in Harish Chandra 's case (supra) is pari materia with Clause 51 of the instant con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant contract and were the focal point of consideration by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 2012 (4) Arb.LR 88 (SC) Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. Anr. v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. have been interpreted by the Supreme Court as has been done by the learned Single Judge. 12. The two clauses considered by the Supreme Court in the afore noted decision read as under:- 1.2.14 No claim for delayed payment due to dispute, etc. The contractor agrees that no claim for interest or damages will be entertained or payable by the government in respect of any money or balances which may be lying with government owing to any disputes, differences or misunderstandings between the parties or in respect of any delay or omission on the part of the Engineer-in-Charge in making immediate or final payment or in any other respect whatsoever. 1.2.15 Interest on money due to the contractor - No omission on the part of the Engineer-in-Charge to pay the amount due upon measurement or otherwise shall vitiate or make void the contract, nor shall the contractor be entitled to interest upon any guarantee or payments in arrears nor upon any balance which may on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fference. Thus, as would be evident from paragraph 10 of the said decision, the Supreme Court clearly held that the clause would apply only with respect to specified type of amounts i.e. the amounts lying with the Government pursuant to the agreement; such as security deposits or retention money and taking the argument further, the phrase or in any other respect whatsoever was read to mean a claim akin thereto i.e. of a kind where money was retained and not of a kind where pursuant to a work done or any other clause of the contract a claim for money was raised. 15. Thus, the argument by learned counsel for the appellant that there is hiatus between the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harish Chandra 's case (supra) and Jai Prakash Associates ' case (supra) is not correct inasmuch as in the latter case there were two clauses prohibiting interest and both of them clearly envisaged a prohibition to pay interest with respect to not only monies lying with the government but even with respect to delayed payments or omissions to make payments for work done or on account of measurements not taken etc. Clauses 50 and 51 of the instant contact are pari materia with clause 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
