Supreme Court Directs Payment of Interest in Arbitration Award Case. The court mandated the appellant to pay interest on the arbitration award while addressing the pending application to set aside the award.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from an arbitration award concerning a contractor engaged for work at Periyar Dam, Tamil Nadu. The respondent, E.R. Sundaram, was awarded a sum of Rs.2,22,54,301/- on 19.1.1998 due to interruptions caused by Kerala Forest Officials. The principal amount was reportedly paid, and the Execution Court mandated interest at 18% per annum from the date of the award until payment, while interest prior to the award was waived by the respondent's counsel. The appellant, the Superintending Engineer, indicated that an application to set aside the arbitration award was pending before the District Court. The Supreme Court directed that this application be resolved expeditiously. The appeal was disposed of without costs, and the respondent was permitted to file a petition for withdrawal of the interest amount in the Execution Court.

Headnote

A) Arbitration - Execution of Award - Payment of Interest - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section Not mentioned - The court directed the appellant to deposit interest at 18% per annum from the date of the award in the Execution Court, while waiving interest prior to the award as per the respondent's counsel. The pending application to set aside the arbitration award was to be disposed of by the District Court at an early date. Held that the execution of the award and interest payment were to proceed as directed (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the interest on the arbitration award should be paid and the status of the application to set aside the award.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to deposit interest at 18% per annum from the date of the award in the Execution Court and permitted the respondent to file a petition for withdrawal of the same. The pending application to set aside the arbitration award was to be disposed of by the District Court at an early date.

Law Points

  • Arbitration
  • Execution of Award
  • Interest on Award
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2009 LawText (SC) (02) 287

Civil Appeal No. 1170 of 2009

2009-02-23

K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Sathasivam

The Superintending Engineer

E.R. Sundaram

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding execution of an arbitration award and payment of interest.

Remedy Sought

The respondent sought payment of interest on the arbitration award.

Filing Reason

The appellant filed an application to set aside the arbitration award.

Previous Decisions

The Execution Court had directed payment of interest on the award.

Issues

Payment of interest on arbitration award Status of application to set aside the award

Submissions/Arguments

The respondent waived interest prior to the award. The appellant indicated a pending application to set aside the award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the importance of executing arbitration awards promptly and addressing pending applications to set aside such awards.

Judgment Excerpts

The respondent was a contractor engaged to do some work at Periyar Dam, Tamil Nadu and the work was alleged to have been interrupted because of the intervention of some Kerala Forest Officials. The appellant is directed to deposit interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the award in the Execution Court.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the decision regarding the execution of the arbitration award and the payment of interest.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Withdrawal of Stop Work Notice by Municipal Corporation — Upholds Need for NOC in Lease Agreements. The court found that the lessee's construction was illegal due to non-compliance with the Lease Deed's stipulations requiring ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for LIC Policyholder Due to Deficiency of Service in Jeevan Aastha Plan. LIC's failure to process proposal and wrongful retention of premium for five years amounts to deficiency of service under the Consumer Protec...