In an appeal against a setting aside order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order dismissing the pre-award interest challenge, confirming the lower court decision.
The appeal was disposed of and the impugned order not setting aside pre-award interest was confirmed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ARBA No.42 of 2012
(Through Hybrid mode)
State of Odisha
…. Appellant
Mr. Tarun Patnaik, Advocate (Addl. Standing Counsel)
-versus-
M/s. P.S. Construction and another
…. Respondents
Mr. Jitendra Nayak, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Order No.
ORDER 07.07.2022
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made.
5. It is confirmed and the appeal is disposed of.
RKS
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the learned arbitrator refusing to set aside pre-award interest in the arbitration award.
Whether clause (a) of sub-section (7) of section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 grants discretion to an arbitral tribunal regarding pre-award interest.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Odisha
M/s. P.S. Construction and another
Arindam Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
