KTP, should have been awarded @ 18%. The basis of this argument of KTP is that in the hire purchase agreement, the SECL is charging interest @ 18%, therefore, the KTP is entitled for interest @ 18%. However, the nature of agreement for hire purchase of vehicle is different than the nature of agreement for transportation of coal. Even otherwise, both are separate agreements and award of interest is to be considered on the basis of agreement which has given rise to a dispute before the Arbitrator. In its appeal, the SECL has argued that interest should not have been awarded at all to KTP in view of clause 34 of the agreement, which says that no interest shall be payable on the security money deposited or deducted for the work and/or on the amount due and payable, if payment is delayed on any reasonable ground. Thus, interest is not payable on security deposit but for other amount it can be paid if payment is unreasonably delayed. The Arbitrator, who has allowed claim, has gone through the nature of dispute, correspondences between the parties from 1988 to 2003, evidence adduced by both the parties and other necessary documents to award interest @ 12%. Clause 36A of the agreement provides that payment shall be made within 2 weeks of fortnightly bills. The SECL's witness Laxmi Pathak admitted in his evidence that no final bill was ever prepared, therefore, security deposit was not
