Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.31 seconds)The Interest Act, 1978
M/S. Chahal Engineering & Construction ... vs Irrigation Department, Punjab, Sirsa on 30 July, 1993
Interference with the award is only when the award is erroneous or the Arbitrator exceeded the jurisdiction and it suffers from patent errors as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Chahal Engineering & Construction Co., v. Irrigation Department, Punjab, wherein it is held that;
Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991
(iv) Over the years, the English and Indian Courts have acted on the assumption that where the agreement does not prohibit and a party to the reference makes a claim for interest, the Arbitrator must have the power to award interest pendente Site. Thawardas, , has not been followed in the later decision of this Court. It has been explained and distinguished on the basis that in that case there was no claim for interest but only a claim for unliquidated damages. It has been said repeatedly that observations in the said judgment were not intended to lay down any such absolute or universal rule as they appear to, on first impression.
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors vs Harish Chandra Singh on 17 January, 1969
In the case of State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, (supra), the Supreme Court while dealing with point No. 1 namely whether the award of interest prior to the
date of the reference was within the power and jurisdiction of the arbitrator, held as follows :
Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Government Of Kerala And Anr. vs V.P. Jolly on 15 November, 1991
Refusal to refer the Supplemental agreement in award which prohibits grant of additional compensation of and extra rates amounts to misconduct on his part and deserves to be set aside, the same as held by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. V.P. Jolly, .
Forasol vs Oil & Natural Gas Commission (And Vice ... on 25 October, 1983
When the claim is made in ID the same coutd not have been straightaway converted info rupees. On the oilier hand the same was required to be converted into US dollars and from then to Indian Rupees. According to Mr. Subba Rao, the rate of conversion will be one prevailing on the date of the judgment namely that when the award was made as rule of the Court. To support his contention he placed reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court in Forasol v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, and Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Company, .
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd vs General Electric Co on 7 October, 1993
44. Regarding interest, it is not disputed that the contract between the parties was a commercial one. Claiming interest is neither restricted nor prohibited in the agreement. The contractor made a claim for interest from the date he made a demand against the Company. The Arbitrator awarded interest at 14% p.a. from the date of demand till the date of award and by exercising his discretion awarded interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of award till the date of realisation, The same is in accordance with Section 34 of CPC. The contention of the Company that there should not have been interest prior to the award has no merit in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the following decision to the effect that interest pendents lite is permissible.