9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll 8.2.1985 (pre-reference period ) in the post Interest Act, 1978 era. So far as the grievance of the appellant pertaining to the dis-allowance of the claim of ₹ 23,685/- under Clauses 1, 3 4 is concerned, we do not find any error to have been committed by the High Court. The above view of the division Bench therefore, cannot be sustained. - C.A. 10613 OF 1995 - - - Dated:- 16-11-1995 - A.S. ANAND AND M.K.MUKHERJEE, JJ. ORDER Leave granted. The only issue involved in this appeal relates to the power and jurisdiction of an Arbitrator to award interest for the period between the making of the reference to the arbitrator and his entering upon the reference (prereference period) after the coming into force of The Interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtent. On appeal before the division bench, pendente-lite interest, (between 8.2.1985 and 15.7.1987) as awarded by the arbitrator, was restored but the order of the learned Single Judge refusing the prereference interest as well as the claims under Clauses 1, 3 and 4 amounting to Rs. 23,685/- was upheld. The division bench opined : "In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and Others Vs. G.C. Roy JT 1991 (6) SC, 349, the Arbitrator had the jurisdiction to award interest during the pendency of the reference before him i.e. from 8 th February, 1985 till 15th July, 1987 when he gave the Award. However, the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award interest from 1st April, 1984 till ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Raghubir Singh. The case certainly supports him and in the cases to which the 1978 Interest Act applies the award of the interest prior to the proceeding is not open to question" (Emphasis ours) The Constitution Bench in G.C. Roy s Case (supra) was dealing with the question relating to the award of interest pendente-lite and not with the question of the award of interest for the pre-reference period and it was in that context that the Constitution Bench held that the view expressed in Jena s Case with regard to award of pendentelite interest could not be said to have laid down good law. The Constitution Bench did not deal with the question of pre-referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the said decision is no longer good law in view of the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt. of Orissa Vs. G.C. Roy. We cannot agree with Shri Bhagat. Both of us were members of the Constitution Bench which decided G.C. Roy. It was confined to the power of the arbitrator to award interest pendent lite. It did not pertain to nor did it pronounce upon the power of the arbitrator to award interest for the period prior to his entering upon the reference (pre-reference period). This very aspect has been clarified by one of us, (B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.) in his concurring order in Jugal Kishore Prabhatilal Sharma Vs. Vijayendra Prabhatilal Sharma. Accordingly, we hold following the decision in Jena that the arbitr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
