Arbitral award review: jurisdiction challenge failed, delay compensation upheld, and pre-award interest reduced for excessiveness.

In a challenge to an arbitral award, the HC held that the jurisdictional objection based on absence of an arbitration agreement could not succeed because the existence of the arbitration clause had already been determined at the Section 11 stage. Compensation for delay, price escalation, idling charges and hire charges was sustained where the employer-caused delay prevented timely completion, even without express contractual escalation clauses. The pre-award interest rate of 12% was found excessive on the facts and was reduced to 9%. Interest on the interest component was upheld as permissible under the statutory scheme. The award was therefore substantially affirmed, with only limited interference on interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside on the ground that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction for want of an arbitration agreement. (ii) Whether compensation for delay, price escalation, idling charges and hire charges could be awarded in the absence of express contractual clauses. (iii) Whether the award of interest at 12% per annum for the pre-award period was excessive. (iv) Whether awarding interest on the interest component was illegal.

Issue (i): Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside on the ground that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction for want of an arbitration agreement.

Analysis: The existence of a valid arbitration agreement had already been gone into at the stage of appointment of the arbitrator under Section 11(6). Once that judicial determination was not carried further, it was not open to the arbitral tribunal to deny jurisdiction on the same premise. In a proceeding under Sections 34 and 37, the challenge on the footing of non-existence of an arbitration clause could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection failed and the award was not set aside on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether compensation for delay, price escalation, idling charges and hire charges could be awarded in the absence of express contractual clauses.

Analysis: Where delay in execution is attributable to the employer and the contractor is prevented from completing the work within time by circumstances beyond its control, the arbitral tribunal may compensate the contractor for extra costs arising from the extended period, even without an express escalation clause. A party accepting belated performance and not rescinding the contract may also face claims for consequential damages. The findings recorded showed that the work was delayed because of the employer's side and the contractor was not in breach.

Conclusion: The award of compensation under these heads was upheld and the challenge failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the award of interest at 12% per annum for the pre-award period was excessive.

Analysis: Interest under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is discretionary, and the rate must be reasonable in the facts of the case. The tribunal gave no specific justification for 12% per annum, whereas the pendente lite rate awarded was lower. On the facts, the pre-award rate was found to be on the higher side and was reduced.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded in part and the rate was reduced to 9% per annum.

Issue (iv): Whether awarding interest on the interest component was illegal.

Analysis: Section 31(7) permits interest on the sum directed to be paid by the award, and the statutory scheme was read as permitting the awarded sum to include interest already crystallised under the award. On that reasoning, interest on the interest component was not treated as impermissible.

Conclusion: The challenge to interest on interest was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The award was substantially affirmed, but the pre-award interest rate was modified downward, resulting in only partial interference with the arbitral award.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Sections 34 and 37, an arbitral award will not be interfered with where the tribunal has acted within jurisdiction and its award of compensatory damages for employer-caused delay is supported by the facts, though the court may interfere with an unreasonable rate of pre-award interest.

---