Beebcon Engineers (Pvt) Ltd. vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. on 7 December, 2005
10. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that clause 6.9.6 has a reference only to the Security Deposit and not other payments or dues is not tenable. The reference to the said clauses 25.1 and 25.2 with regard to retention money does not help the petitioner. The said clauses state that when money is so retained, the Seller (i.e., the petitioner in this case) will have no claim for interest or damages on account of such withholding or retention. These clauses, in fact, support the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner would not be entitled to any interest on any amount due from the respondent to the petitioner and the said point has been expressly extended to retention money withheld also. Therefore, upon a consideration of the aforesaid clauses, it becomes clear that the terms of the contract between the petitioner and the respondent expressly stipulate that no interest would be payable by the respondent to the petitioner. This being the case in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court as well as that of the Delhi High Court in DSA Engineers (supra), it becomes clear that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to award any interest and, therefore, insofar as and to the extent that the Arbitrator has awarded interest in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent, the award has to be set aside.