Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 868 (1.45 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Hyder Consulting(Uk) Ltd vs Governer State Of Orissa Tr.Chief Eng on 25 November, 2014

National Project Construction Ltd vs State Of Himachal Pradesh 3 on 9 December, 2025

As the present case arises under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. V. State of Orissa and UHL Power Company Limited Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, would apply to the present case and the grant of interest @ 18% on the award amount, cannot be termed to be in violation of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court or any provision of law. It would also be pertinent to notice that Section 31(7)(b) itself provides for grant of interest, as the amount awarded @ 18%, initially, till it was amended in 2016. This rate of interest had been modified to be interest @ 2% over and above the bank rate, applicable at that point of time. As the Award was passed, in 2002, before the amendment in 2016, the said rate of interest is also in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

National Aviation Company Of India Now ... vs Indian Aircraft Technicians ... on 8 November, 2023

7. As the judgment in S.L. Arora [State of Haryana v. S.L. Arora & Co., (2010) 3 SCC 690 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 823] , on which reliance has been placed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, has since been overruled by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) [Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 38] , the findings returned by the appellate court in the impugned judgment to the effect that the Arbitral Tribunal is not empowered to grant compound interest or interest upon interest and only simple interest can be awarded in favour of UHL on the principal amount claimed, is quashed and set aside. As a result, the findings returned in para 54(a) of the impugned judgment [UHL Power Co.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - R Palli - Full Document

Air India Limited vs All India Aircraft Engineers ... on 8 November, 2023

7. As the judgment in S.L. Arora [State of Haryana v. S.L. Arora & Co., (2010) 3 SCC 690 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 823] , on which reliance has been placed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, has since been overruled by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) [Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 38] , the findings returned by the appellate court in the impugned judgment to the effect that the Arbitral Tribunal is not empowered to grant compound interest or interest upon interest and only simple interest can be awarded in favour of UHL on the principal amount claimed, is quashed and set aside. As a result, the findings returned in para 54(a) of the impugned judgment [UHL Power Co.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - R Palli - Full Document

H.P. Power Corporation Limited ... vs M/S Hindustan Construction Company ... on 19 October, 2023

In view of the above discussion, the arbitrator has the discretion to award post-award interest on a part of the "sum"; the "sum" as interpreted in Hyder Consulting [Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 38]. Thus, the award of the arbitrator granting post-award interest on the principal amount does not suffer from an error apparent. "
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Splendor Landbase Ltd vs Arysta Life Science India Ltd on 24 May, 2024

16. Sub-section (7) of Section 31 of the 1996 Act is already reproduced in the judgment of S.A. Bobde, J. in Hyder Consulting (UK) [Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 38]. Applying the principle of plain interpretation of the language employed by the legislature, the position that would emerge, on an analysis of clause (a) of sub-section (7) of Section 31 of the 1996 Act, is as under:
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs M/S S.A. Builders Ltd on 17 December, 2024

60. That apart, it is not the case of the appellant that the interest portion is covered by the contract agreement between the parties. In the absence thereof, Section 31(7)(a) as well as Section 31(7)(b) of the 1996 Act would have their full effect. The sum awarded would mean the principal amount plus the interest awarded from the date of cause of action upto the date of the award. Thereafter, as per Section 31(7)(b) of the 1996 Act, the sum (principal plus interest) would carry interest @ 18% from the date of the award to the date of payment. This would be consistent with the law laid down by this Court in M/s. Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S Kant - Full Document

Ajay Singh vs Kal Airways Pvt Ltd & Ors. on 31 July, 2023

16. Sub-section (7) of Section 31 of the 1996 Act is already reproduced in the judgment of S.A. Bobde, J. in Hyder Consulting (UK) [Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 38] . Applying the principle of plain interpretation of the language employed by the legislature, the position that would emerge, on an analysis of clause (a) of sub-section (7) of Section 31 of the 1996 Act, is as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next