AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1989
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1999 (Union of India Vs. M/s Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Co. & others), who had accepted the award of the arbitrator and made it the rule of the Court. It is this judgment and the award both which are brought in challenge. 3. The facts as they culled out from the record are that on 21.1.1999, the proceedings between the parties culminated into award given by the sole arbitrator, who was appointed. The dispute had arisen as the respondent and the appellant herein arose because of a contract entered between the parties. The arbitrator entered into fresh reference on 22.4.1997. The parties were given full opportunity. The arbitration proceedings were completed and closed on 24.10.1998. (a) Tender issued on - 11.12.199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany, F.A.F.O. No.714 of 2005, decided on 11.4.2019. To contend that the award as well as the judgment is not bad in the eye of law and that this Court should be loath in interfering with the well reasoned judgment of the arbitrator as well as the Court. 8. Having heard the parties at length on the contours of Arbitration Act, 1996, it cannot be said that the proceedings were under the old Act of 1940 and, therefore, interest rate which has been granted should not have been 18%. It is submitted by Sri Tandon for the respondents that the statutory rate of interest should be 1 or 2 per cent higher or lower than the bank rate. 9. Recently the Apex Court has deprecated the grant of compound interest in arbitral matters and, therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oing into the details of them, the same is not disturbed. 12. Recently, the Apex Court in K.Marappan (Dead) Versus Superintending Engineer T.B.P.H.L.C. Circle Anantapur, 2019 JX(SC) 391 and in Raveechee and Company Versus Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 3109 has interpreted the role of the Courts while hearing matters under the arbitration Act .The judgments go to show that pendente lite interest will depend upon several factors such as ; phraseology used in the agreement clauses conferring power relating to arbitration, nature of claim and dispute referred to arbitrator, and on what items power to award interest has been taken away and for which period. The Court observed: "34. Thus our answer to the reference is that if contract e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is binding on the parties cannot be extended to bind an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has the power to award interest pendente lite where justified. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of Claim No. 12." 15. While going through the record and the award it appears that while considering the claim of the contractor, the arbitrator was himself a engineer was taken pain to look into the amount which could be granted and which could be discarded which is evident from the discussion of Item no.5. The decision in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation will apply in the facts of this case. The State not only harassed the contractor, rescinded the contract gave ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....struction reported in 2003 (8) SCC 154. 29. The award so far as interest is concerned, reads as follows: "With regard to contention (a) above, it is contended by the respondent that increase in HSD is not by operation of law but on account of the administrative orders and, therefore, the claim is not maintainable under Article 23.1 which deals only with variation in operating costs on account of change in or enactment of law in India or interpretation of existing law in India after the date of opening of price bid. To examine this contention it is essential to refer to the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Section 2 of this Act in subsection (a) defines "Essential Commodity". In sub clause (viii) of clause (a)....