Welcome back to Caseon!
Log in today and discover expertly curated legal audios and how our AI-powered, tailor-made responses can empower you to navigate the complexities of your case.
Stay ahead of the curve—don’t miss out on the insights that could transform your legal practice!
As per case facts, the dispute originated from an agreement for the modernization of Jhansi Workshop, which incurred significant delays and led to claims for outstanding payments. The Arbitral Tribunal
...awarded sums, including pre-award/pendente lite and post-award interest. The Commercial Court and High Court upheld this award. The reason for the appeal to the Supreme Court was to challenge the award of interest. The question arose whether the Arbitral Tribunal was justified in awarding pre-award/pendente lite interest despite contractual prohibitions and post-award interest. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the Arbitral Tribunal was not justified in awarding pre-award/pendente lite interest due to contractual bars (Clause 16(3) and 64(5) of GCC) and Section 31(7)(a) of the Act. However, it was justified in awarding post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b), but modified the rate from 12 percent to 8 percent per annum as the higher rate was without justification and excessive, concluding that the lower courts erred by not addressing these points.
Bench
Applied Acts & Sections
Section 31
–The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 34
–The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 37
–The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Source & Integrity Notice
This is a faithful reproduction of the official record from the e-Courts Services portal, extracted for research.
To ensure "Contextual Integrity," all AI insights must be cross-referenced with the official PDF,
which remains the sole authoritative version for judicial purposes.
This platform provides research aids, not legal advice; verify all content against the official Court Registry before legal use.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....