Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(xiv) Insofar as liquidated damages are concerned, the contention was that, since the project was never completed and the time for completion envisaged in the project had elapsed, MTNL ought to have been permitted to claim liquidated damages, in terms of clause 18 of the Award.

(xv) As regards interest it was submitted that the learned Arbitrator has awarded a rate of interest of 18% on dollar payments which is high and inconsistent with the rate generally awarded by courts in India. The submission was that rate should have been fixed keeping in mind the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (in short LIBOR).

13. Insofar as interest was concerned, Mr. Sethi pointed out that the interest of 8% was not high, as contended on behalf of MTNL. It was submitted that the interest at the rate of 18% was awarded only for the period beyond 30 days post the passing of the award in case payments, as directed, were not made by that time. The learned counsel also submitted that in respect of that portion of the award, which was in foreign currency, the discretion of the arbitral Tribunal to award interest was not circumscribed by LIBOR. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on a judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 19.9.2013, passed in Appeal No.391/2013, in the case titled : "Steel Authority of India Ltd. V. Pacific Gulf Shipping Co. Ltd." REASONS

19.1 I find no error in any of the findings returned by the learned arbitrator in this behalf.

20. As regards Mr. Pattjoshi's objection the award of interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on even those claims qua which MTNL is required to pay in U.S. dollars, was high; I am in agreement with the submissions made by Mr. Sethi that there is no fetter on the discretion of the learned arbitrator in not applying the LIBOR measure in awarding interest. A case in point, which is, the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Steel Authority of India Vs. Pacific Gulf Shipping Company Ltd. rejected such a submission on the ground that Section 31(7)(a) of the Act confers discretion upon the arbitral tribunal where the award is for payment of money, to award interest unless otherwise agreed by the parties, at such rate, as it deems reasonable. The argument that in cases where the award is in foreign currency, the interest awarded by an arbitral tribunal should not exceed the LIBOR measure, is rejected.

20.1 As to what were the interest rates prevalent under LIBOR regime would also have to be proved. One could though, take judicial notice of the fact that there were discrepancies noted in the fixation of interest rates under LIBOR.

20.2 LIBOR, as well known, is nothing but an average interest rate ascertained from time to time based on inputs given by major banks in London as to their interest rates. Under the LIBOR regime, banks give details vis-a-vis actual interest rate that they are paying or would be required to pay for borrowing from other banks. Apparently, in about 2012, it was discovered that banks were manipulating their interest rates by either increasing or decreasing rates with a view to profit or demonstrate their financial robustness. Investigations in this behalf were commenced in various jurisdictions, including USA and U.K. The Treasury Committee of the U.K has, evidently, gone into the issue with regard to fixation of LIBOR rates. (see report of the Treasury Select Committee of the Parliament of the U.K. available at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/ cmtreasy/481/48102.htm) 20.3 The purpose, with which I have referred to this aspect of the matter is, to bring home the point that the LIBOR measure, by itself, may not be perhaps, a yardstick, by which, necessarily, courts in India or arbitrators ought to be governed.