TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an arbitrator can award interest for the period after the award and before payment or decree. (ii) Whether a non-speaking award can be set aside on the ground of error apparent on the face of the award or by reinterpreting the contract to hold that the arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction.
Issue (i): Whether an arbitrator can award interest for the period after the award and before payment or decree.
Analysis: The power to award post-award interest was held to be available to an arbitrator on the same principle that governs interest pendente lite. The Court applied the rule that, though the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply in terms, its principle as to interest can govern arbitral proceedings. The later decisions of the Court were treated as supporting the competence of the arbitrator to grant interest from the date of the award until decree or realization, whichever is earlier.
Conclusion: The award of interest for the post-award period was valid and ought to have been upheld, in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether a non-speaking award can be set aside on the ground of error apparent on the face of the award or by reinterpreting the contract to hold that the arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction.
Analysis: In the case of a non-speaking award, the court cannot search the record or the underlying contract to discover a supposed error in interpretation and then set the award aside as erroneous on its face. Interference is confined to cases where the award itself, or a document incorporated in it, discloses a legal proposition which is plainly wrong, or where the arbitrator has clearly acted outside the reference. Recasting the dispute as one of jurisdiction does not permit the court to substitute its own view of the contract for that of the arbitrator. The Court also found that the clauses relied upon were not so clear as to make the arbitrators' construction unsustainable on the face of the award.
Conclusion: The High Court erred in setting aside the award on items 2 and 5, and the award could not be interfered with on either ground, in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the orders of the High Court were set aside, and a decree was directed to be passed in terms of the award.
Ratio Decidendi: A non-speaking arbitral award cannot be set aside by searching the contract or record for a supposed error of interpretation; interference is confined to a patent error on the face of the award or a clear excess of jurisdiction, and an arbitrator is competent to award interest for the post-award period.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
