SREE GOPIKISHAN ENGINEERING (P.) LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
LAWS(CAL)-1994-11-22
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on November 25,1994

SREE GOPIKISHAN ENGINEERING (P.) LTD. AND ANOTHER Appellant
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Baboolal Jain, J. - (1.) This is an application by Shri Gopi Kishan Engineering (Pvt.) Limited, inter alia, praying that opinion be given by this court on the special case stated in the award of the joint arbitrators dated 25th August, 1993. The relevant portion of the award is as follows : (1) We Award that the Respondent, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is liable to pay to the Claimant No. 1, a sum of Rs. 8,32,700/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand and Seven Hundred only) in full and final settlement of all claims of the Claimant No. 1 which were referred to us. With regard to Award on Interest and cost, we state the Award in part, in the form of a Special case, for the opinion of the appropriate court as under : (2) Whether the Joint Arbitrators are empowered to Award Interest and/or cost to the Claimant ? If the opinion of the Hon'ble Court, to be obtained by any of the parties, is in the affirmative, our Award as regards Interest and Cost is as under : (3) Claimant No. 1 will be entitled to Interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of loss Awarded above, i.e., on Rs. 1,32,700/- from 1st September, 1986 till the date of this Award. (4) Parties are left to bear their own costs of Arbitration."
(2.) It appears from the said award that the Joint Arbitrators made an award in favour of the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 8,32,700/-. They also stated the award in part in the form of a special case for the opinion of the court as mentioned in paragraph (2) (A) as mentioned above. They also stated in the award that if the opinion of the court is in the affirmative then their award as regarding interest and costs is as mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said award.
(3.) "Though there are other prayers in the said petition of the petitioner, inter alia for modifying the award, for allowing interest at higher rate, for allowing costs of arbitration etc., the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner did not press the same. The petitioner relied on the judgment reported in ( Secretary Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa v. G.C. Roy, 1992 (1) SCC 508, and and also another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in, (Jugal Kiskore Pravati Lal Sharma v. Bijendra Pravati Lal Sharma, 1993 (1) SCC 114 .;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.