TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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: Whether the executing court or decree court could grant interest for the period after the award when such interest had not been granted in the award.
Analysis: The award granted pre-reference and pendente lite interest but did not grant interest for the period from the date of the award till the date of the decree. The party seeking execution had not objected to the award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and had instead applied for a decree in terms of the award under Section 17 of that Act. The legal position applied was that a court passing a decree in terms of an award cannot travel beyond the award and confer a relief not granted by the arbitrator. On that footing, the grant of post-award interest by the executing court amounted to going beyond its jurisdiction. The decree to that extent was therefore a nullity and inexecutable.
Conclusion: The court held that post-award interest could not be granted in execution or in the decree when it was not part of the award, and the challenge to the appellate order failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A court cannot enlarge an arbitral award by granting relief, including post-award interest, that was not awarded by the arbitrator; any decree or execution order doing so is without jurisdiction to that extent.
TaxTMI 
