Spicejet Limited vs Kal Airways Private Limited & Anr. & Ors. on 17 May, 2024
―10. The provisions of Section 31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act fell for
consideration before this Court in many cases including in the cases
of Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited (supra) and Delhi Airport Metro
Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. A
perusal of clause (a) of subsection (7) of Section 31 of the 1996 Act
FAO(OS) (COMM) 179/2023 & FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2023
Signature Not Verified Page 88 of 97
Digitally Signed
By:KAMLESH KUMAR
Signing Date:17.05.2024
18:39:08
would reveal that, no doubt, a discretion is vested in the arbitral
tribunal to include in the sum for which the award is made interest,
on the whole or any part of the money, for the whole or any part of
the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and
the date on which the award is made. However, it would reveal that
the section itself requires interest to be at such rate as the arbitral
tribunal deems reasonable. When a discretion is vested to an
arbitral tribunal to award interest at a rate which it deems
reasonable, then a duty would be cast upon the arbitral tribunal to
give reasons as to how it deems the rate of interest to be reasonable.
It could further be seen that the arbitral tribunal has also a
discretion to award interest on the whole or any part of the money
or for the whole or any part of the period between the date of cause
of action and the date on which the award is made. When the
arbitral tribunal is empowered with such a discretion, the arbitral
tribunal would be required to apply its mind to the facts of the case
and decide as to whether the interest is payable on whole or any
part of the money and also as to whether it is to be awarded to the
whole or any part of the period between the date on which the
cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made.