Section 31(7) of The Arbitration Act V

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

My Lord, Interest?

No.

“The High Court has held that no interest is payable. Arbitrators are creatures of agreements. G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508 exhaustively dealt with power of the Arbitral Tribunals to grant pre-reference and pendente lite interest. Of course, 1940 Act was in vogue at that time. In Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 26 entire case law on the subject is revisited and legal position is re-emphasized. Keeping in mind the present case is regulated by 1996 Act, we have to decide the issue at hand. The High Court rightly noted that Port of Calcutta, (1996) 1 SCC 516 was under the 1940 Act and the legal position has had a paradigm shift inSayeed Ahmed, (2009) 12 SCC 26. Sayeed Ahmed distinguishing the restrictive wording in Harish Chandra, (1999) 1 SCC 63 has been consistently followed by this Court in number of cases thereafter.”

– Hon’ble Justice A.K. Sikri, Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 1539 of 2019].

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.