Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1966 (8) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bitrator would decide the dispute according to law and would give such relief with regard to pendente lite interest as the Court could give if it decided the dispute. This power of the arbitrator was not fettered either by the arbitration agreement or by the Arbitration Act, 1940. The contention that in an arbitration in a suit the arbitrator had no power to award pendente lite interest must be rejected. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. - C.A. 878 OF 1964 - - - Dated:- 19-8-1966 - R.S. BACHAWAT, K. N. WANCHOO AND J.C. SHAH, JJ. For the Appellant : K L. Gosain, S. K Mehta and K. L. Mehta For the Respondent : S. T. Desai, S. N. Prasad, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain JUDGMENT The appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he amount and costs. One of the submissions of the appellant -before the arbitrator was that in view of a certain control order, it could not take delivery of 46-1/2 bales, and in case it was held liable for the contract price, it should be allowed a rebate for the current market price on its giving up its claim to the bales. After hearing the parties, the arbitrator made his award on November 30, 1961. The award recited the disputes between the parties and their respective contentions and submissions and then directed that "the defendant should pay Rs. 1,17,108-7-9 in all to the plaintiff and to give up claim to 46-1/2 bales. The defendant should pay interest on the above sum to the plaintiff at the rate of six annas per cent per month fro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aken delivery of the bales. The appellant s case was that the contract in respect of 461 bales remained executory and it stoo cancelled on the passing of the freezing order dated July 30, 1948 by the Textile Commissioner, Indore under el. 25(b) of the Indore Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, whereby the respondent was directed not to deliver any cloth or yarn from the Mills premises. The appellant submitted that, in any event, having regard to this. freezing order it should not be held liable for the full price of 46-1/2 bales and on its giving up its claim to the bales, should be made liable for only the difference between the contract price and the market price. On a consideration of the contentions and submissions of the parties, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue behind the back of the appellant, the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct, This contention has no force. The arbitrator had raised two issues. The second issue referred to the respondent s claim in respect of 46-1/2 bales -s a claim for loss in respect of the bales. At the time of the writing of the award, the arbitrator corrected this issue so as to show that the claim was for the price of the bales. By this amendment, the appellant suffered no prejudice. The parties well knew that the respondent claimed the price of 46-1/2 bales and fought the case before the arbitrator on that footing. The last objection to the award is that the arbitrator had no power to award interest during the pendency of the suit. In support of this objection, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aside the award regarding interest on the ground that the claim for interest was not referred to arbitration and the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. In this Court, counsel for the claimant contended that the arbitrator had statutory power under the Interest Act of 1839 to award the interest and, in any event, he had power to award interest during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings under s. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Bose, J. rejected this contention. It will be noticed that the judgment of this Court in Seth Thawardas s case([1955] 2 S.C.R.48,65) is silent on the question whether the arbitrator can award interest during the pendency of arbitration proceedings if the claim regarding interest is r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates