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 the contractual clause barred the claim for overrun charges; (ii) whether the deduction of crane charges for unit III was authorised under the agreement; (iii) whether the arbitrator could award pendente lite interest and interest on judgment notwithstanding the interest bar clause.
Issue (i): whether the contractual clause barred the claim for overrun charges.
Analysis: The agreement expressly prohibited overrun charges. The arbitral tribunal entertained and allowed a head of claim that the contract itself disallowed. The learned Judge was correct in setting aside that part of the award, and there was no basis to interfere with that conclusion.
Conclusion: The claim for overrun charges was barred by the agreement and the setting aside of that part of the award stood affirmed, against the Appellant.
Issue (ii): whether the deduction of crane charges for unit III was authorised under the agreement.
Analysis: The crane facility was contractually limited up to unit II. The agreement did not provide for crane charges for unit III, and there was no contemporaneous notice or documented authority showing that the Appellant had agreed to such deduction. In the absence of contractual authorisation, deduction of crane charges for unit III was held to be erroneous.
Conclusion: The deduction of crane charges for unit III was not authorised and the Appellant was entitled to refund of those charges, in favour of the Appellant.
Issue (iii): whether the arbitrator could award pendente lite interest and interest on judgment notwithstanding the interest bar clause.
Analysis: A clause barring interest could prevent pre-reference interest where the contract specifically prohibited it, but it did not displace the power to award pendente lite interest or interest on judgment. That power was treated as flowing from Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and denying such power to the arbitrator would be inconsistent with the corresponding power of a civil court in a money claim.
Conclusion: The award of pendente lite interest and interest on judgment was upheld, in favour of the Appellant.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in respect of crane charges and the challenge to interest failed, while the rejection of overrun charges remained undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract does not authorise a deduction or expressly bars a claim, the deduction or claim cannot be sustained; and a contractual bar on interest does not necessarily exclude an arbitrator's power to award pendente lite and post-award interest, which is consistent with Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
