Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.26 seconds)Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan vs Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore on 19 August, 1966
He invites attention to the observations in Hukum-
chand Mills, case [1967] 1 SCR 105, reiterated (in the
context of post-award interest) in Union v. Bungo Furniture
Co., [1967] 1 SCR 324 at p. 329) that it is "an implied term
of the reference that the arbitrator will decide the dispute
according to law and would give such relief with regard to
pendente lite interest as a Court could give if it decided
the dispute". He urges that Abhaduta Jena related to a batch
of cases, arising out of references made prior to, and later
than, the commencement of the Interest Act, 1978, but by the
parties themselves under the terms of the contract, without
reference to court and so it was held that pendente lite
interest could not be granted. But that is not so in the
present case.
Ct. A. Ct. Nachiappa Chettiar And Others vs Ct. A. Ct. Subramaniam Chettiar on 13 November, 1959
This principle would logically be applicable, as rightly
contended by Shri Banerjee, only to cases where the refer-
ence to arbitration arises in the course of a suit.
Dr. Ghosh, however, submits that, except for Nachiappa
v. Subramaniam, [1960] 2 SCR 209 and Hukumchand Mills,
[1967] 1 SCR 105, the other cases referred to by Chinnappa
Reddy, J. were all only cases in which an arbitrator had
been appointed under s. 8 or 20 of the Arbitration Act. The
principle enunciated, he submits, was actually a little
wider than that contended for by Shri Banerjee. It is this
that where an arbitrator is appointed by the Court and a
reference is made to him, he has all the powers of the
Court.
Union Of India vs Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd on 14 September, 1966
He invites attention to the observations in Hukum-
chand Mills, case [1967] 1 SCR 105, reiterated (in the
context of post-award interest) in Union v. Bungo Furniture
Co., [1967] 1 SCR 324 at p. 329) that it is "an implied term
of the reference that the arbitrator will decide the dispute
according to law and would give such relief with regard to
pendente lite interest as a Court could give if it decided
the dispute". He urges that Abhaduta Jena related to a batch
of cases, arising out of references made prior to, and later
than, the commencement of the Interest Act, 1978, but by the
parties themselves under the terms of the contract, without
reference to court and so it was held that pendente lite
interest could not be granted. But that is not so in the
present case.
State Of Rajasthan vs R.S. Sharma & Co on 16 August, 1988
In view of Abhaduta
Jena and the clarification specifically set out in para 13
of Shartna's case, we are unable to accede to the contention
of Dr. Ghosh, attractive as it is an equitable proposition.
The Division Bench of the High Court had no occasion to
consider the above recent pronouncements of this Court.
Further, it is seen that, before the Division Bench, the
Union took an objection that under clause 16(2) of the
general conditions of contract, the contractors could claim
no interest on the amounts that may be determined as
657
payable to them. The Division Bench met this contention by
relying on a circular issued by the Government of India
making the claim for interest entertainable in arbitration
"if notice had been issued in this behalf by the
arbitrator". There is, however, no finding and nothing on
record brought to our notice to show that any specific
notice, claiming interest, had been given as contemplated by
the contract. Having regard to all these considerations, we
are unable to uphold the order of the Division Bench on this
issue.
Executive Engineer Irrigation ... vs Abaaduta Jena on 22 September, 1987
Sri Milon Banerjee, appearing for the Union of India,
however, contends that the above principle is applicable
only in cases where an arbitrator is appointed on interven-
tion of count as contemplated in Chapter IV of the Arbitra-
tion Act. It is only in these cases that the arbitration
proceedings can be considered to be a continuation of the
court proceedings, empowering the arbitrator to do all that
the court could do. For, even in cases arising after the
Interest Act, 1978, the award of pendente lite interest can
only be in terms of the provisions of s. 34 of the Code of
Civil Procedure and this cannot be invoked in cases of
arbitration except in cases falling under Chapter IV merely
on the ground that the appointment of the arbitrator is made
under S. 8, 12 or 20 of the said Act. Counsel submits that
Chinnappa Reddy, J. has pointed out in Abhadhuta Jena's case
[ [1988] 1 SCC at pp. 434-5] that in all cases whether
arising before or after the Interest Act, the claimants
would not be entitled to interest from the date of reference
to the date of the award for the simple reason that "the
arbitrator is not a court nor were the references to arbi-
tration made in the course of suits".
Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Allen Berry & Co. (P) Ltd vs Union Of India, New Delhi on 5 January, 1971
Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd.,
Indore, [1967] 1 SCR 105; Allen Berry & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v.
Union oflndia, [1971] 3 SCR287;N. Chellappan v. Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr., [1975] 1 SCC 289;
Hindustan Tea Co. v. K. Shashi Kant Co. & Ant., [1986]
Suppl.
Jalan Trading Co. (Private Ltd.) vs Mill Mazdoor Union(With Connected ... on 5 August, 1966
He points out that, though initially in Seth Thawar-
das' case [1955] 2 SCR 48 some doubts were raised about the
competence of the arbitrator to award interest, this Court
has subsequently consistently held that an arbitrator can do
this: vide, Nachiappa v. Subramaniam, [1960] 2 SCR 209;
Satinder v. Arnrao, [1961] 3 SCR 676; Firm Madanlal v.
Hukamchand Mills Ltd., [1967] 1 SCR 105; Union v. Bungo
Steel Furniture P. Ltd., [1967] 1 SCR 324; Ashok Construc-
tion Co. Ltd. v. Union, [1971] 3 SCC 66 and State v. Saith &
Skelton P. Ltd., [1972] 3 SCR 233.