Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (1.24 seconds)Section 3 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991
The
observation of the Bench in B.N. Agarwalla case that in
G.C. Roy case (supra) the decision in Deptt.
Executive Engineer Irrigation ... vs Abaaduta Jena on 22 September, 1987
of Irrigation v.
Abhaduta Jena (1988) 1 SCC 418 was not overruled was
only in the context of the issue of award of interest for the
pre- reference period.
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
M/S. Madnani Construction ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 December, 2009
This Court upheld the award of such interest under the old
Act on the ground that the Arbitrator had the discretion to
decide whether interest should be awarded or not during the
pendente lite period and he was not bound by the contractual
terms insofar as the interest for the pendente lite period. But
in the instant case the Arbitral Tribunal has refused to award
interest for the pendente lite period. Where the Arbitral
Tribunal has exercised its discretion and refused award of
interest for the period pendente lite, even if the principles in
those two cases were applicable, the award of the Arbitrator
could not be interfered with. On this ground also the
decisions in Engineers-De-Space-Age (supra) and Madnani
(supra) are inapplicable. Be that as it may.”
Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor ... vs N.C.Budharaj (Dead) By L.Rs.Etc.Etc on 10 January, 2001
In Sayeed Ahmed's case (supra) (SCC para 24) it
was held that in the light of the decision of the Constitution
Bench in G.C. Roy's case (1992) 1 SCC 508 and N.C.
Budharaj case (2001) 2 SCC 721 it is doubtful whether the
observations in Engineers-de-Space-Age's case (supra) to
the effect that the Arbitrator could award interest pendente
lite, ignoring the express bar in the contract, is good law.