9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Arbitration award interpretation - Interest on claims, Power of Arbitrators to grant interest, Interest on delayed payments, Application of Section 3 of the Interest Act, Limitation period for claims. Arbitration Award Interpretation - Interest on Claims: The appeal involved a dispute arising from arbitration proceedings resulting in an award directing the appellant to pay specific amounts to the respondent, including interest on certain claims. The Arbitrators awarded interest at 12% per annum on the claims from the date of the award till realization. The appellant contended that interest on the claims itself was awarded for different periods, thus arguing against further interest on the same claims. The Court clarified that Arbitrators have the power to grant interest similar to Section 34 of the CPC, not interest on the interest awarded but on the claim made. The claim comprised the balance of the amount claimed under invoices, interest on delayed payment, and interest on damages or compensation for delayed payment, becoming part of the principal amount. The Court rejected the argument citing Section 3 of the Interest Act, affirming the Arbitrators' power to grant interest on the principal amount. Power of Arbitrators to Grant Interest and Application of Section 3 of the Interest Act: The Court emphasized that Arbitrators have the authority to grant interest, akin to the court's power under Section 34 of the CPC, as per Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Interest is awarded on the claim made, not on the interest awarded. The claim included the balance amount claimed under invoices, interest on delayed payment, and interest on damages or compensation for delayed payment. The Court ruled that Section 3 of the Interest Act was not relevant in the context of the case, rejecting the argument against granting interest on the principal amount. Interest on Delayed Payments and Limitation Period for Claims: The appellant argued that the claim for interest on delayed payments was barred by the law of limitation. The Court noted that the pleading before the Arbitrators regarding the limitation was insufficient, lacking details on how the claim became time-barred. The Court highlighted that the transactions between the parties needed further adjudication to determine the due amounts and completion of transactions. As the necessary foundation was not laid during the arbitration proceedings, the Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal against the decree passed in terms of the award. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
|
