2024 INSC 743 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10472 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2792 of 2020)

R.P. GARG …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,

TELECOM DEPARTMENT & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.The short question before us is whether the appellant is entitled

to post award interest on the sum awarded by the Arbitrator. The

Arbitrator denied payment of such interest under a misplaced

impression that the contract between the parties prohibited it. The

executing Court

1

affirmed the finding of the Arbitrator and rejected the

prayer. However, allowing the appeal, the District Court

2

held that the

appellant will be entitled to post award interest. By the order

1 Order in M.A No. 19 of 2001 dated 10.10.2002.

2 Order passed by the District Judge in Civil Appeal no.86 of 11.11.2002 dated 04.03.2003

1

impugned before us, the High Court

3

allowed the revision and set aside

the District Court order while holding that the contract between the

parties did not permit grant of post award interest.

2.1For the reasons to follow, while allowing the appeal we have held

that as this is a case arising out of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996

4

, by operation of Section 31(7)(b), the sum directed to be

paid under the Arbitral Award shall carry interest. This is a first

principle. A sum directed to be paid by an Arbitral Award must carry

interest. In this view of the matter, we have restored the judgment of

the District Court granting 18% interest from the date of the award to

its realization. The short facts are as under:

3. A contract was executed on 17.10.1997 between the appellant

contractor, and the Telecom Department of Haryana, Respondents 1

and 2 herein, for trenching and laying of underground cables. Terms of

the contract required the appellant to furnish a security of Rs. 10

Lakhs. Disputes that arose with respect to non-payment of bills

submitted by the appellant during execution of the contract were

referred to Arbitrator appointed under Section 11 of the Act on

24.10.2000.

4.The Arbitrator passed the Award on 08.03.2001. In the said

Award, though the claim of the appellant was allowed, his plea for

3 Order dated 14.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No.

2561 of 2003

4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’

2

interest was denied on the ground that there is a specific clause in the

Arbitration Agreement prohibiting the same.

5.During execution of the Award, the appellant claimed payment of

post award interest on the Award by raising a specific objection to that

effect. However, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division vide his order

dated 10.10.2002 dismissed the objection and affirmed the original

award.

6.Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal. The District Judge

allowed the appeal and by Order dated 04.03.2003 directed payment of

post award interest at the rate of 18% on the Award amount. The

appellant was also directed to approach the trial court for recovery of

the same.

7. Being aggrieved, the Telecom Department, the respondent herein,

filed a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court which was allowed

by the High Court by the order impugned before us. The High Court

looked into sub-clause (iv) of Clause 1 of the Contract entered between

parties which provides for the scope of the grant of interest on certain

payment. The sub clause is as under:-

“No interest will be payable on the earnest money or

security deposit amount or any amount payable to the

contractor under the contract.”

8.Assuming that the above referred clause of interest is an

agreement between the parties prohibiting the grant of interest, the

3

High Court proceeded to allow the Revision and set aside the grant of

interest. The High court referred to the decision of this Court in

Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation

(India) Ltd.

5

and came to the conclusion that the Supreme Court has

laid down a precedent that interest cannot be paid when a contractual

clause specifically prohibits it.

9. We are of the opinion that the judgment of High Court is clearly

erroneous. Firstly, the interest granted by the First Appellate Court

only related to post award period, and therefore, for this period, the

agreement between the parties has no bearing. Section 31(7)(b) deals

with grant of interest for post award period i.e., from the date of the

award till its realization. The statutory scheme relating to grant of

interest provided in Section 31(7) creates a distinction between interest

payable before and after the award. So far as the interest before the

passing of the award is concerned, it is regulated by Section 31(7)(a) of

the Act which provides that the grant of interest shall be subject to the

agreement between the parties. This is evident from the specific

expression at the commencement of the sub-section which says

“unless otherwise agreed by the parties”.

10. The relevant extract of Section 31 of the Act is reproduced herein

for ready reference:

“31 Form and contents of arbitral award .

5 (2019) 17 SCC 786.

4

“…

7(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, where and

in so far as an arbitral award is for the payment of

money, the arbitral tribunal may include in the sum for

which the award is made interest, at such rate as it

deems reasonable, on the whole or any part of the

money, for the whole or any part of the period between

the date on which the cause of action arose and the date

on which the award is made.

(b) A sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall,

unless the award otherwise directs, carry interest at the

rate of two per cent, higher than the current rate of

interest prevalent on the date of award, from the date of

award to the date of payment.”

11.So far as the entitlement of the post-award interest is concerned,

sub-Section (b) of Section 31(7) provides that the sum directed to be

paid by the Arbitral Tribunal shall carry interest. The rate of interest

can be provided by the Arbitrator and in default the statutory

prescription will apply. Clause (b) of Section 31(7) is therefore in

contrast with clause (a) and is not subject to party autonomy. In other

words, clause (b) does not give the parties the right to “contract out”

interest for the post-award period. The expression ‘unless the award

otherwise directs’ in Section 31(7)(b) relates to rate of interest and not

entitlement of interest. The only distinction made by Section 31(7)(b) is

that the rate of interest granted under the Award is to be given

precedence over the statutorily prescribed rate. The assumption of the

High Court that payment of the interest for the post award period is

subject to the contract is a clear error.

12.The clear position of law that granting post-award interest is not

subject to the contract between the parties was recently affirmed in

5

the decision of this Court in Morgan Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. v.

Videocon Industries Ltd.,

6

wherein the court observed as follows:

“24. The issue before us is whether the phrase “unless the

award otherwise directs” in Section 31(7)(b) of the Act only

provides the arbitrator the discretion to determine the rate of

interest or both the rate of interest and the “sum” it must be

paid against. At this juncture, it is crucial to note that both

clauses (a) and (b) are qualified. While, clause (a) is qualified

by the arbitration agreement, clause (b) is qualified by the

arbitration award. However, the placement of the phrases is

crucial to their interpretation. The words, “unless otherwise

agreed by the parties” occur at the beginning of clause (a)

qualifying the entire provision. However, in clause (b), the

words, “unless the award otherwise directs” occur after the

words “a sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall”

and before the words “carry interest at the rate of eighteen

per cent”. Thereby, those words only qualify the rate of post-

award interest.

25. Section 31(7)(a) confers a wide discretion upon the

arbitrator in regard to the grant of pre-award interest. The

arbitrator has the discretion to determine the rate of

reasonable interest, the sum on which the interest is to be

paid, that is whether on the whole or any part of the

principal amount, and the period for which payment of

interest is to be made — whether it should be for the whole or

any part of the period between the date on which the cause

of action arose and the date of the award. When a discretion

has been conferred on the arbitrator in regard to the grant of

pre-award interest, it would be against the grain of statutory

interpretation to presuppose that the legislative intent was to

reduce the discretionary power of the arbitrator for the grant

of post-award interest under clause (b). Clause (b) only

contemplates a situation where the arbitration award is silent

on post-award interest, in which event the award-holder is

entitled to a post-award interest of eighteen per cent.”

13.The High Court, therefore, committed an error in relying on the

decision of this Court in Jaiprakash (supra). The judgement in

Jaiprakash deals with the issue of prohibition of pendente-lite interest

and will have no application to the facts of the present case where the

6 (2023) 1 SCC 602.

6

claim relates to post-award interest.

14.In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the

High Court in Civil Revision No. 2561 of 2003 (O&M) dated

14.05.2019 is set-aside, and the decision of the First Appellate Court

in C.A No. 86 of 11.11.02 dated 04.03.2003 for granting interest @

18% p.a. is restored.

15.Parties shall bear their own costs.

……………………………….J.

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

…..………………………….J.

[SANDEEP MEHTA]

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 10, 2024

7