TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellant(s) : Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Manu Nair, Adv., Ms. Saanjh N. Purohit, Adv., Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv., Mr. Malak Bhatta, Adv., for M/s Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv., Mr. Siddharth Nayak, Adv., Mr. Raghav Awasthi, Adv., for M/s. Karanjawala & Co. Mr. Devender Kr. Saini, AAG Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR Mr. Anurag Pandey, AOR Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR For the r Respondent(s) : Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, AOR, Ms. Apurva Upmanyu, Adv., Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, AAG Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Adv. ORDER Civil Appeal Nos.3148 of 2012, 3147 of 2012 and 3149 of 2012 Heard Mr. K.K. Venu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s: "In the result, I am of the view that S.L. Arora's case is wrongly decided in that it holds that a sum directed to be paid by an Arbitral Tribunal and the reference to the Award on the substantive claim does not refer to interest pendente lite awarded on the "sum directed to be paid upon Award" and that in the absence of any provision of interest upon interest in the contract, the Arbitral Tribunal does not have the power to award interest upon interest, or compound interest either for the pre-award period or for the post-award period. Parliament has the undoubted power to legislate on the subject and provide that the Arbitral Tribunal may award interest on the sum directed to be paid by the Award, meaning a sum inclusive of princi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... This being the position, it can be stated with certitude that decision in S.L. Arora (supra) does not lay down the law correctly. Hence, the computation of the amount has to be done by the executing court on the basis of principle stated in M/s. Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. (supra). In view of the aforesaid, the judgment rendered by the High Court is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Civil Appeal No.2841 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.18614 of 2012 Leave granted. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 23rd February, 2012, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, in E.F.A.(OS) No.16 of 2008, where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e nor order as to costs. Civil Appeal No.1390 of 2013 Heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellant. In the present appeal, the question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court, while dealing with an appeal arising from rejecting an objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could have modified the award especially the rate of interest determined by the learned Arbitrator. As we find the learned Arbitrator, while dealing with the interest component, has directed as follows: "Now, therefore, in order to settle the dispute between the parties regarding the basic loss suffered by the petitioner/contractor, I allow Rs.5 lacs with interest at the rate of 16% with quarterly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsulting (UK) Ltd. (supra) and hence, there was no justification on the part of the High Court hearing the appeal and it should not have modified the interest component applying equitable principle. In the result, the direction issued by the High Court qua reduction of interest is set aside and the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Civil Appeal No.2842 of 2015 @ S.L.P.(C) 19895 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No.2843 of 2015 @ S.L.P.(C) 20282 of 2008 Leave granted. The present appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 21st May, 2008, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No.4942 of 2007. On a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the High Court has only addressed itself....