GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. LEELAMMA VALSON
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-80
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
February 06,2002
GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Appellant
VERSUS
LEELAMMA VALSON
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF ORISSA VS. B N AGARWALLA [REFERRED]PRADIP PORT TRUST VS. UNIQUE BUILDERS [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
SWAMI VASUDEVANAND SARASWATI DISCIPLE OF SWAMI SHANTANAND SARASWATI VS. JAGAT GURU SHANKARCHARYA, JYOTISHPEETH PEETHADESHWAR SRI SWAMI SWAROOPANAND SARASWATI [LAWS(ALL)-2017-9-88] [REFERRED TO]AMAR SINGH VS. SHIV DUTT AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-7-245] [REFERRED TO]
JAYENDRA HIMATLAL SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-7-109] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN GOPAL VS. MEHAR SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-7-102] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. MAN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2003-8-106] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL [LAWS(SC)-2013-11-51] [REFERRED TO]
JAYENDRABHAI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(CA)-2015-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
MEENAKSHISUNDERAM TEXTILE LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-3-167] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-246] [REFERRED TO]
KLEN & MARSHALLS MANUFACTURERS AND EXPORTERS LTD VS. POWER GRID CORPORATION INDIA LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-61] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SAEED VS. MUNNU KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-96] [REFERRED TO]
SAEED VS. MUNNA KHAN (D.) AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-354] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA BRAHMAN VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
JANAK DULARI VS. RAJA RAM [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-747] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH KUMAR UPADHYAY VS. VIJAY KISHORE ANAND [LAWS(ALL)-2021-7-56] [REFERRED TO]
S R APPARELS PVT.LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-3-165] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTA SAIKIA S/O SADAN CHANDRA SAIKIA VS. PURBANCHAL EDUCATION WELFARE SOCIETY (PEWS) AND 2 ORS [LAWS(GAU)-2019-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
AJEET PRATAP SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2023-7-159] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Ruma Pal, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)An agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent by which the respondents undertook the construction of residential flats. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. After the completion of the work, disputes arose between the parties. The disputes were referred to a panel of three arbitrators under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (referred to as the Act). By an award made on 31st December, 1987 the arbitrators directed the appellant to pay the respondents various amounts towards the several heads of claim put forward by the respondents. The arbitrators also awarded interest in respect of certain of the respondents' claims. As the dispute in this appeal centers around the right of the respondent to claim interest, the relevant portion of the award in this context is extracted (wherein the appellant herein is referred to as 'the respondent' and the respondent herein as 'the claimant') :
"Respondent to pay claimant interest @9% from 29-5-1980.
Respondent to pay claimant interest at 10% from 1-2-1985 on claims III to IX and on Claim XII only."
(3.)The award was filed in the local Court which issued notice under Sec. 14 (1) of the Act, to the appellant. The appellant filed an application challenging the award on several grounds, one of the grounds being that the award of interest pendente lite was illegal. The respondents also filed an application in which the first prayer was to pass a decree in terms of the award. The second prayer was to :
"Grant interest at 18% per annum on the amounts due under the decree to be so passed from the date of decree till date of payment or realization, in accordance with S. 29 of the Arbitration Act."
(2.)An agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent by which the respondents undertook the construction of residential flats. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. After the completion of the work, disputes arose between the parties. The disputes were referred to a panel of three arbitrators under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (referred to as the Act). By an award made on 31st December, 1987 the arbitrators directed the appellant to pay the respondents various amounts towards the several heads of claim put forward by the respondents. The arbitrators also awarded interest in respect of certain of the respondents' claims. As the dispute in this appeal centers around the right of the respondent to claim interest, the relevant portion of the award in this context is extracted (wherein the appellant herein is referred to as 'the respondent' and the respondent herein as 'the claimant') :
"Respondent to pay claimant interest @9% from 29-5-1980.
Respondent to pay claimant interest at 10% from 1-2-1985 on claims III to IX and on Claim XII only."
(3.)The award was filed in the local Court which issued notice under Sec. 14 (1) of the Act, to the appellant. The appellant filed an application challenging the award on several grounds, one of the grounds being that the award of interest pendente lite was illegal. The respondents also filed an application in which the first prayer was to pass a decree in terms of the award. The second prayer was to :
"Grant interest at 18% per annum on the amounts due under the decree to be so passed from the date of decree till date of payment or realization, in accordance with S. 29 of the Arbitration Act."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.