TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to such work order a formal agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent and the said agreement contained an arbitration clause. As disputes and differences-arose between the parties, a reference was made to the sole arbitrator for resolving the dispute and an award dated 30.4.1993 was passed awarding an amount of Rs. 51,77,600/- in favour of the appellant. Appellant was granted interest of Rs. 11,39,560/- calculated at the rate of 15% from October, 1990 to April, 1993. Interest was also granted for the pre-reference period to the extent of Rs. 10,97,250/- but in the award no interest was granted from the date of the award till the date of the decree. 3. Challenging the said award, the respondent filed an applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date of the decree is a nullity and the same is not executable against the respondent. 6. Learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court by judgment and order dated 13.12.1996 held that insofar as the decree was passed providing for grant of interest from the date of the award till the passing of the decree, is a nullity and is inexecutable and the appellant was directed to refund the amount representing the same pendente lite interest. Against the same judgment and order the present appellant filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court and the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court by judgment and order dated 8.3.2001 was pleased to dismiss the appeal. 7. Challenging the said appeal this special leave petition has been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eference made without intervention of the Court and the three-Judge Bench of this Court held that in cases coming after the commencement of the Interest Act of 1978 an arbitrator has the same power as the Court to award interest up to the date of institution of the proceedings. In cases which arose prior to the commencement of the Interest Act 1978, the arbitrator has no such power under provisions of the previous Interest Act of 1839. In the instant case, as pointed out above, there is no dispute about the competence of the arbitrator to grant interest. The arbitrator, as noted above, granted interest but did not grant any interest after the date of the award till the date of the decree. Therefore, the decision in Abhaduta Jena (supra) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. 12. However, in the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and Ors. v. G.C. Roy (1992) 1 SCC 508, the Constitution Bench of this Court overruled the decision of the Abhaduta Jena (supra) and held on construction of Section 14 and 29 of the said Act that the arbitrator can grant pendente lite interest. In paragraph 8 in the judgment of G.C. Roy (supra) the Constitution Bench of this Court clearly mentioned three periods for which the question of award of interest by the arbitrator may arise. The said periods have been clearly pointed out in paragraph 8 of G.C. Roy (supra) and the same is set out as below: ...(i) for the period commencing from the date of dispute till the date the arbitrator enters upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
