Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.38 seconds)
Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor ... vs N.C.Budharaj (Dead) By L.Rs.Etc.Etc on 10 January, 2001
cites
Union Of India vs West Punjab Factories Ltd on 24 August, 1965
Even when the earlier Constitution Bench decision in
the case of Union of India vs. West Punjab Factories Ltd.,
1966(1) SCR 580, approving Thawardas, Bengal Nagpur Railway
Co.,and Rallia Ram, was brought to the notice of the Court,
it was observed that not only the said case was not a case
under Arbitration Act but also it approved Thawardas only so
far as the power to grant interest prior to the institution
of the suit and not so far as the power to award interest
pendente lite is concerned.
Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd on 14 September, 1966
Reference
has also been made in G.C. Roys case to the decision
reported in Union of India vs Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt.
Ltd. [AIR 1967 SC 1032] wherein also this Court accorded
approval to the principles laid down in the English cases,
observing as follows:
Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991
(b) for the period during which the proceeding is pending
before the arbitrator which is otherwise called pendente
lite period; (c) for the period from the date of the award
till the award is made rule of the court. The question to
be considered in the present case is confined to the
jurisdiction of the arbitrator to award interest for the
pre-reference period only. After hearing the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents it
appears to me that the moot question to be answered by this
Bench is whether the decision in Abhaduta Jena case (supra)
holding that the arbitrator has no competence to award
interest for the pre-reference period unless any of the
three conditions namely - 1) if the agreement between the
parties entitles the arbitrator to award interest; 2) if
there is a usage of trade having the force of law for award
of interest and 3) if there are other provisions of the
substantive law enabling the award of interest; requires
re-consideration, particularly in view of the decision of
the Constitution Bench in G.C.Roy case (supra).
Ct. A. Ct. Nachiappa Chettiar And Others vs Ct. A. Ct. Subramaniam Chettiar on 13 November, 1959
It was on
that basis that the award of pendente lite interest was made
on the principle of Section 34 Civil Procedure Code in
Nachiappa Chettiar v. Subramaniam Chettiar, Firm Madanlal
Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Union of India
v. Bungo Furniture Pvt. Ltd. and State of Madhya Pradesh
v. M/s Saith & Skelton Pvt. Ltd. In regard to interest
prior to the suit, it was held in these cases that since the
Interest Act, 1839 was not applicable, interest could be
awarded if there was an agreement to pay interest or a usage
of trade having the force of law or any other provision of
substantive law entitling the claimant to recover interest.
Illustrations of the provisions of substantive law under
which the arbitrator could award interest were also given in
some of the cases. It was said, for instance, where an
owner was deprived of his property, the right to receive
interest took the place of the right to retain possession,
and the owner of immovable property who lost possession of
it was, therefore, entitled to claim interest in the place
of right to retain possession. It was further said that it
would be so whether possession of immovable property was
taken away by private treaty or by compulsory acquisition.
Another instance where interest could be awarded was under
State Of Orissa vs B.N. Agarwalla Etc on 29 January, 1997
According to the learned counsel for the
appellants, the principles laid down in Jenas case as
affirmed in G.C. Roys case and as clarified and declared
in the subsequent decisions of this Court including the one
in B.N. Agarwalas case (Supra), do not call for any change
or modification or alteration and the reference should be
answered in favour of the appellants.
Section 3 in The Interest Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Seth Thawardas Pherumal vs The Union Of India(And Connected ... on 24 March, 1955
As for the reliance placed for the appellants upon the
decisions reported in AIR 1938 PC 67; AIR 1955 SC 468 and
1966 (1) SCR 580, we are of the view that the observations
contained in those judgments have to be construed in the
factual context and nature of the claims involved therein
and not in the abstract and out of their context.
Thawardas case (Supra) is one where the Arbitrator awarded
interest on unliquidated damages for a period before the
reference to arbitration as well as for the period
subsequent to reference.