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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the "sum" in Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 includes pendente lite interest, and whether that phrase yields to an express contractual agreement governing interest.
Analysis: The Court reiterated that the word "sum" in Section 31(7)(a) may, as a general rule, include pre-award interest, and that Section 31(7)(b) operates on the sum so determined. However, the opening words "unless otherwise agreed by the parties" were held to be controlling. The Concession Agreement contained an express stipulation on the manner and rate of interest on termination payment, and the arbitral tribunal had applied that contractual term. The Court held that accepting the appellant's construction would render the contractual exception otiose and would disregard the party autonomy embedded in the statute.
Conclusion: The contractual agreement governed the award of interest, and the appellant's claim to add pendente lite interest to the statutory "sum" was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is subject to an express agreement between the parties on interest, the arbitral tribunal and the court must give effect to that agreement, and the statutory expression "sum" cannot be applied so as to nullify the contractual stipulation.