9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (9) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of law in, a suit having jurisdiction of the subject-matter covered by s. 34 could grant a decree for interest. Appeal dismissed. - C.A. 373 OF 1965 - - - Dated:- 14-9-1966 - V. RAMASWAMI, VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA AND DAYAL, RAGHUBAR, JJ. JUDGMENT These appeals are brought by certificate from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated August 1, 1962 in Appeals Nos. 32 and 132 of 1961 by which the High Court allowed the appeals against the Union of India (hereinafter called the appellant ) in part and modified the award of the arbitrator and the/judgment of Mallick, J. The disputes relate to 3 contracts for the supply of bedsteads by the respondent-Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd.-(hereinafter called the Company ) to the appellant, namely, contract No. A.T. 3116 for the supply of 17202 bedsteads, contract No. A.T. 767 for the supply of 30,000 bedsteads and contract No. A. T. 816 for the supply of 7,000 bedsteads. Each of these contracts contained the usual arbitration clause embodied in cl. 21 of the general conditions of contract in form No. W.S.B. 133. The disputes arising between the Company and the appellant out of the three contracts were referred to the arbitr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bills of the Company with regard to contracts other than the three contracts of bedsteads which are the subject matter of the present case, and whether the arbitrator could subtract the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,57,500/from the price of steel credited to the appellant. On behalf of the appellant it was contended by Mr. Bindra that the deduction of Rs. 3,57,500/- had been made from the bills submitted by the Company for the price of the bedsteads supplied under the three contracts Nos. A. T. 3116, A. T. No. 767 and A. T. 816 and the arbitrator should not have debited the appellant with this amount. It is not possible for us to accept this argument. The award of the arbitrator does not show on its face that the amount of Rs. 3,57,500/- has been deducted from the bills submitted by the Company for the price of the bedsteads under the three contracts. The relevant portion of the award states: "I hold that the steel of different categories amounting to 1908 tons and odd of the value of Rs. 4,95,060/calculated at basic rates had been supplied by the Government to the Company. I further hold that the whole quantity of steel had been used in making the 7000 bedsteads under A. T. 311 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r may very well be doubted, I think it may be considered as established." The decision of this case was approved by the Judicial Committee in Champsey -Bhara and Company v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Conmpany, Ltd., in which the appellants sold cotton to the respondents by a contract which contained a submission to arbitration of disputes as to quality, and a further clause submitting to arbitration all other disputes arising out of the contract. Cotton was delivered, but the respondents objected to its quality, and upon arbitration an allowance was awarded; the respondents thereupon rejected the cotton. The appellants claimed damages for the rejection. The dispute was referred to arbitration and the award recited that the contract was subject to the rules of the Bombay Cotton Trade Association, which were not further referred to; and that the respondents had rejected on the grounds contained in a letter of a certain date. That letter stated merely that as the arbitrators had made an allowance of a certain amount the respondents rejected the cotton. The High Court set aside the award, holding that it was bad on its face, in that under one of the rules of the Association t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entertain the claim. In this Court, counsel for the appellant 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, but it should be noticed that the judgment of this Court in Seth Thawardas s case([1955] 2 S. C. R. 48.) does not deal with the question whether the arbitrator can award interest subsequent to the passing of the award if the claim regarding interest was referred to arbitration. In the present case, all the disputes in the suit, including the question of interest, were referred to the arbitrator for his decision. In our opinion, the arbitrator had jurisdiction, in the present case, to grant interest on the amount of the award from the date of the award till the date of the decree granted by Mallick, J. The reason is that it is an implied term of the reference that the arbitrator will decide the dispute according to existing law and give such relief with regard to interest as a court could give if it decided the dispute. Though, in terms, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing every right and discretionary remedy given to a court of law; that the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, which repealed s. 28 of the Civil Procedure Act, 1833, was not concerned with the powers of arbitrators; and that the plaintiff was entitled to the interest awarded by the arbitrator. The legal position is the same in India. In Bhwanidas Ram-Gobind v. Harasukhdas Balkishandas( A.I.R. 1924 cal. 524.) the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Rankin and Mookerjee, JJ. held that the arbitrators had authority to make a decree for interest after the date of the award and expressly approved the decision of the English cases-Edwards v. Great Western Ry., (1851) 11 C.B. 588) Sherry, v. Oke(1835) 3 Dow. 349-1 H. W. 119) and Beahan v. Wolfe (1832) 1 Al. Na. 233.. The same view has been expressed by this Court in a recent judgment in Firm Madanlal Roshanal Mahajan v. The Hukamchand Mills Ltd., Indore [1967] S.C.R. 105 We are accordingly of the opinion that the arbitrator had authority to grant interest from the date of the award to the date of the decree of Nallick, J. and Mr. Bindra is unable to make good his argument on this aspect of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
