Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Claims 2,5 and 9

44. The Arbitral Tribunal, while adjudicating upon Claim nos. 2, 5, and 9, gave similar reasoning for its decision. Claim no. 2 was regarding the "amount due arising on account of wilful delay in issuance of completion (with 18% simple interest p.a. calculated till 31 st October 2016)", and Claim no. 9 was regarding the "Commercial Units Defaulters in payment of dues (18% simple interest p.a. till 31st October 2016)". The petitioner has alleged that the learned Sole Arbitrator has committed a grave error while ignoring the contractual obligations of the respondent while adjudicating upon these claims. Section 11.4 of the Concessionaire Agreement is reproduced herein:

49. Since the reasoning for adjudicating Claim no. 9 is the same as that of Claim no. 2, no interference is required in the award regarding Claim no. 9.

50. Claim no. 5 was for the "Reimbursement of unpaid CETP/ Sewerage Charges and water charges (18% simple interest p.a. calculated till 31st October 2016)". The petitioner submitted that learned Sole Arbitrator committed a grave error or law, and failed to appreciate that the rights of the parties were flowing from the Agreement, whereby both the parties agreed to perform their reciprocal promises. The petitioner relied upon Section 11.4 (a) (ii) of the Concessionaire Agreement to substantiate his claim. In this claim, the learned Arbitral Tribunal directed that the order and direction as laid down in Claim no. 2 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC:1908 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the recovery of the unpaid CETP/Sewerage and Water charges.

Claim no. 11

77. Claim no. 11 is regarding the "Interest due to delay in disbursement of monthly payment (18% simple interest p.a. calculated till 31st October 2016)". A key ground of perversity raised by the petitioner is that though there exists a Concessionaire Agreement, the learned Arbitral Tribunal had awarded an interest rate that is contrary to the provisions of the Agreement.

81. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. S.L. Arora & Co., (2010) 3 SCC 690 says as under:

―34. Thus it is clear that Section 31(7) merely authorises the Arbitral Tribunal to Award interest in accordance with the Contract and in the absence of any prohibition in the Contract and in the absence of specific provision relating to interest in the Contract, to Award simple interest at such rates as it deems fit from the date on which the cause of action arose till the date of payment. It also provides that if the Award is silent about interest from the date of Award till the date of payment, the person in whose favour the Award is made will be entitled to interest at 18% per annum on the principal amount Awarded, from the date of Award till the date of payment. The calculation that was made in the execution petition as originally filed was correct and the modification by the respondent increasing the amount due under the Award was contrary to the Award.‖