In miscellaneous appeals against orders for the execution of arbitral awards, the High Court dismissed petitions challenging a Single Judge's direction to pay post-award interest at 18% per annum under Arbitration Act Section 31(7)(b).
No relief. Appeals dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~9&10
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS & ANR ..... Appellants versus M/S JAGDAMBA SALES CORPORATION ..... Respondent
EFA (OS) 13/2014
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS & ANR ..... Appellants versus M/S P A SALES CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Present: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Addl. Standing Counsel, GNCTD (Civil), Advocate for appellants. Mr. K.G. Sharma, Advocate for respondent in EFA(OS) 13/2014.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
%
O R D E R 15.01.2016
The limited grievance in these appeals is with respect to the post awarded interest. The Arbitral Tribunal had directed payment of amounts forfeited by the appellant. The Tribunal, however, did not award any pre award interest. In these circumstances, at the stage of execution, learned Single Judge directed the payment in conformity with Section 31 (7) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to pay post award interest at the statutory rate. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by this direction.
This Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals.
Firstly, the Statute, i.e., Section 31 (7) (b) is categorical that default interest, i.e., wherever the Arbitral Award is silent about post award interest, 18% must necessarily be paid. Secondly, the learned Single Judge followed the decision in the State of Haryana v. S.L. Arora & Co. , AIR 2010 SC 1511, which had clarified the law on this aspect.
For the above reasons, the appeals are dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
JANUARY 15, 2016 / vikas /
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court is correct in directing payment of post-award interest at the statutory rate under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the arbitral award was sil
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana v. S.L. Arora & Co.Followed¶13
State of Haryana v. S.L. Arora & Co., AIR 2010 SC 1511 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS & ANR
M/S JAGDAMBA SALES CORPORATION
M/S P A SALES CORPORATION
S RAVINDRA BHAT
DEEPA SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
