Arbitration interest limits clarified: direct references do not permit pendente lite interest, and prior interest depends on legal entitlement.

In direct arbitration references made otherwise than in a suit, an arbitrator cannot award pendente lite interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because that power is confined to court proceedings. Pre-proceeding interest depends on the governing legal basis: for references predating the Interest Act, 1978, it requires agreement, trade usage with the force of law, or other substantive statutory entitlement; for references governed by the 1978 Act, interest may be awarded where the Act applies. The analysis also distinguishes arbitrations in suits, where the court's powers may extend to the arbitrator.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an arbitrator in a reference made otherwise than in a suit could award interest for the period prior to the commencement of the arbitration proceedings. (ii) Whether such an arbitrator could award pendente lite interest during the currency of the arbitration proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether an arbitrator in a reference made otherwise than in a suit could award interest for the period prior to the commencement of the arbitration proceedings.

Analysis: For references arising before the Interest Act, 1978, the power to award interest prior to the proceedings depended on the existence of an agreement, a usage of trade having the force of law, or some other substantive law conferring such entitlement. The Interest Act, 1839 did not extend to arbitrators and did not supply such power for these cases. For references to which the Interest Act, 1978 applied, an arbitrator fell within the definition of court and could award interest in the cases covered by that Act, including interest up to the institution of proceedings where the statutory conditions were satisfied.

Conclusion: For pre-1978 references, pre-proceeding interest was not admissible in the absence of a contractual, customary, or statutory basis. For references governed by the Interest Act, 1978, pre-proceeding interest was admissible where the Act applied.

Issue (ii): Whether such an arbitrator could award pendente lite interest during the currency of the arbitration proceedings.

Analysis: Pendente lite interest is governed by Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in court proceedings. That provision does not apply to arbitration not made in a suit, because an arbitrator is not a court within the meaning of that section. Where arbitration is in a suit, the arbitrator may exercise the same power as the court; but in a direct reference without court intervention, such power does not exist unless supported by agreement, statute, usage, or other substantive legal source.

Conclusion: In a direct reference to arbitration without the intervention of the court, pendente lite interest could not be awarded as a matter of course.

Final Conclusion: The legal position was drawn in a distinction between direct arbitrations and arbitrations in suits, and the appeals were disposed of by sustaining the bar against pendente lite interest in direct references while recognizing the wider effect of the Interest Act, 1978 for later cases.

Ratio Decidendi: In a reference to arbitration made without the intervention of the court, the arbitrator cannot award pendente lite interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and pre-proceeding interest is allowable only where supported by agreement, usage having the force of law, or substantive statutory entitlement, subject to the Interest Act applicable to the case.

---