1989 (10) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and a dispute arose thereunder which was referred to arbitration. The Arbitration made an award which was filed in Court. On service of notice the appellant raised several objections which the trial court overruled. The award was made a rule of the court. After unsuccessfully moving the High Court in appeal, the appellant has approached this Court. Except for the objection taken by the appellant on the question of the power of the Arbitrator to grant interest, we do not find any merit in the other points decided by the impugned judgment. The decision of the High Court is there- fore affirmed on all the other points. 3. So far the question relating to interest is concerned, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n allowed the claim of interest for the earlier period. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the arbitrator allowed the past interest twice over. The award is a nonspeaking one and in paragraph 1 it says that the appellant shall pay the claimant Rs. 1,29,000 in full satisfaction of the claims. In paragraph 2 of the award it is held that the claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the above principal sum of Rs. 1,29,000 from 1.10.1978 till the payment of the decree. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the sum of Rs. 1,29,000 included the claim of interest also. In view of the clear language of paragraph 2 of the award, we reject the argument. 5. The appellant, however, is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case. 7. The arbitrator in the present case was appointed on 16.3. 1982. He after being informed about his appointment, directed the parties to submit their statements of claim by the 20th April, 1982. The actual date when this order was made is not known. The contractor-respondent filed his statement on 5.5. 1982 and the appellant on 9.7.1982. Relying on the observation in lossifoglu v. Coumantaros, [1941] 1 K.B. 396, and those of Raghubar Dayal, J. in Hari Shankar Lal v. Shambhunath Prasad and others, [1962] 2 SCR 720 at page 732, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the arbitrator cannot be said to have entered on the reference earlier than April 20, 1982. According to the learned counsel for the respondent it....