Interim arbitral awards, damages, and interest may stand where contractual interpretation and jurisdiction remain within lawful limits.
An interim or partial arbitral award that finally determines some referred claims is valid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and an omitted-claims additional award is maintainable. Arbitral determinations on delay, disruption, extra work, measurement methodology, exchange variation and substituted materials will generally stand where they are within jurisdiction, based on evidence, and not contrary to the contract or law; damages and profit claims may follow delay where time is not contractually essential. The award of pre-award and post-award interest is within arbitral power, though the rate may be moderated on equitable grounds. Interference is limited to the extent the award departs from contractual entitlement or exceeds legal limits.
Issues: (i) Whether a so-called partial award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be sustained as an interim award and whether the additional award was maintainable; (ii) whether claims for delay, disruption, increased overheads, loss of profit, extra work, measurement methodology, exchange variation, and substitution of materials were within the arbitral jurisdiction and contrary to the contract or Indian law; (iii) whether the arbitrator's award of interest required interference and, if so, to what extent.
Issue (i): Whether a so-called partial award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be sustained as an interim award and whether the additional award was maintainable.
Analysis: The statutory scheme recognizes an award to include an interim award. An interim award may finally determine the matters covered by it even if other issues are deferred to a later stage. The tribunal's procedure of deciding some claims first, leaving others for later consideration, did not convert the award into an impermissible preliminary decree. The request for an additional award was also within the statutory framework governing omitted claims.
Conclusion: The so-called partial award was treated as a valid interim award, and the additional award was upheld as maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether claims for delay, disruption, increased overheads, loss of profit, extra work, measurement methodology, exchange variation, and substitution of materials were within the arbitral jurisdiction and contrary to the contract or Indian law.
Analysis: Where the contract did not make time the essence in the relevant sense, delay could found a claim for compensation under the Contract Act. The tribunal was entitled to treat delay and disruption as giving rise to damages, and the use of a recognised formula for quantifying overhead and profit did not, by itself, render the award illegal. Claims raised through correspondence and conduct could mature into disputes; an invoice was not the only mode of asserting a claim. The tribunal's approach to fabricated tonnage and use of industry standards for measurement was within its interpretive jurisdiction. The exchange-rate clause, however, remained operative according to its terms for the relevant payment heads, and the substitution claim was not fully sustainable where the contract and the parties' accepted course of dealing negatived additional payment beyond the contract structure. The arbitrator's findings on buoyancy tanks, tie-downs and sea-fastening were factual findings based on evidence and were not shown to be perverse.
Conclusion: The award was largely sustained on delay, disruption, extra work, measurement and most compensation claims, but was interfered with to the extent the substitution claim exceeded the contractual entitlement and to the extent exchange variation was wrongly denied for the relevant claim heads.
Issue (iii): Whether the arbitrator's award of interest required interference and, if so, to what extent.
Analysis: The tribunal had power to award pre-award and post-award interest under the 1996 Act. However, in view of the long lapse of time and in the interests of justice, the court considered it appropriate to moderate the rate of interest rather than disturb the entitlement itself.
Conclusion: The award of interest was affirmed in principle but reduced to a lower rate.
Final Conclusion: The arbitral awards were modified only to the limited extent indicated, with most findings upheld and the interest component reduced; the challenge succeeded only in part.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an interim or partial award that finally determines some referred claims is valid, arbitral interpretation of contract and quantification of damages will not be interfered with if plausible and within jurisdiction, and interference is warranted only where the award transgresses the contract, the statute, or the limited grounds of review.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
