NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 5891 OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 20397/2014)
NHPC Ltd. …….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/s Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.
& Ors. ……Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
06.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
F.A.O. No. 3607 of 2011 wherein the Single Judge of the High Court
dismissed the FAO filed by the appellant herein, in consequence, affirmed
the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge,
Faridabad in Arbitration Petition No.52 of 2010.
3. On 11.08.2014, this Court issued notice of the appeal to respondent
No. 1 confining it to examine only the question regarding the rate of
interest awarded by the High Court on the awarded sum to the respondent.
4. Therefore, the short question involved in the appeal is whether the
rate of interest awarded by the High Court on the awarded sum is proper or
not.
5. Having regard to the short controversy involved in the case, it is
not necessary to burden the order by mentioning the facts in detail except
to the extent necessary for the disposal of the appeal.
6. The appellant-Government of India Company awarded a contract dated
21.03.2001 to respondent No.1 for doing some specific civil construction
work in the project-Teesta V Hydroelectric Project at Sikkim known as Lot
TT-4 civil works.
7. In execution of the aforesaid work, disputes regarding non-payment of
dues for the work done by respondent No.1 and several ancillary disputes in
connection thereto arose between the parties. Since the parties could not
amicably settle the disputes and hence they were referred to the Arbitral
Tribunal in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the contract. The
Arbitral Tribunal consisted of three arbitrators.
8. Respondent No. 1 filed their claim for recovery of Rs.537.88 lacs
against the appellant before the Arbitral Tribunal towards their
outstanding dues of various natures. The appellant contested the claim of
the respondent.
9. By award dated 10.05.2008, the Arbitral Tribunal partly allowed the
claim of respondent No.1 and accordingly awarded them a total sum of
Rs.356.78 lacs. The Arbitral Tribunal also awarded 10% p.a. simple interest
payable on the awarded sum (Rs.356.78 lacs) from the date of accrual of
cause of action till the date of award and further awarded future interest
at the rate of 12% p.a. on the awarded sum, i.e., Rs.451.49 lacs (Rs.356.78
lacs principal sum + Rs.94.71 lacs interest = Rs.451.49 lacs) payable from
the date of award till recovery.
10. The appellant, felt aggrieved, challenged the legality of the
aforesaid award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 before the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, who by order dated
24.12.2010 partly allowed the application and modified the award
accordingly.
11. The appellant, felt aggrieved, challenged the order of the Additional
District Judge and filed appeal before the High Court. By impugned order,
the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the
Additional District Judge.
12. Felt aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of
special leave before this Court.
13. Heard Mr. Gaurab Banerji, learned senior counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Sarvjit Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
14. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was only one.
According to him, the High Court while dismissing the appeal and in
principle upholding of the award of the Arbitral Tribunal wrongly awarded
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and 18% p.a. in place of 10% and 12% p.a.
which was awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal. It was, therefore, his
submission that this error appears to be more in the nature of
typographical error rather than on merits and hence needs to be corrected
by this Court by restoring the same rate of interest which was awarded by
the Arbitral Tribunal in the award dated 10.05.2008 and upheld by
Additional District Judge vide his order dated 24.12.2010, i.e., 10% and
12% respectively as detailed above in para 9.
15. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 candidly admitted the error
committed by the High Court in the order while awarding the interest.
Respondent No.1 also in their counter at page 204 admitted the error, which
was pointed out by the appellant while awarding the rate of interest.
16. In our opinion, the submission urged by the appellant appears to be
correct and hence it deserves to be accepted. As mentioned above, even the
respondent could not oppose the prayer made by the appellant which appear
to be more in the nature of typographical error.
17. In the light of foregoing discussion, which is sufficient, the appeal
succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned order is modified to the extent
that the awarded amount shall carry the interest at the same rates which
were awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal in the award dated 10.5.2008. In
other words, the awarded sum shall carry interest at the rate 10% p.a.
payable from the date of accrual of cause of action till the date of award
and shall further carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of
award till recovery on the awarded sum as detailed in para 9 above.
18. No costs.
………...................................J.
[J. CHELAMESWAR]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;
July 04, 2016
-----------------------
7
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 5891 OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 20397/2014)
NHPC Ltd. …….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/s Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.
& Ors. ……Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
06.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
F.A.O. No. 3607 of 2011 wherein the Single Judge of the High Court
dismissed the FAO filed by the appellant herein, in consequence, affirmed
the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge,
Faridabad in Arbitration Petition No.52 of 2010.
3. On 11.08.2014, this Court issued notice of the appeal to respondent
No. 1 confining it to examine only the question regarding the rate of
interest awarded by the High Court on the awarded sum to the respondent.
4. Therefore, the short question involved in the appeal is whether the
rate of interest awarded by the High Court on the awarded sum is proper or
not.
5. Having regard to the short controversy involved in the case, it is
not necessary to burden the order by mentioning the facts in detail except
to the extent necessary for the disposal of the appeal.
6. The appellant-Government of India Company awarded a contract dated
21.03.2001 to respondent No.1 for doing some specific civil construction
work in the project-Teesta V Hydroelectric Project at Sikkim known as Lot
TT-4 civil works.
7. In execution of the aforesaid work, disputes regarding non-payment of
dues for the work done by respondent No.1 and several ancillary disputes in
connection thereto arose between the parties. Since the parties could not
amicably settle the disputes and hence they were referred to the Arbitral
Tribunal in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the contract. The
Arbitral Tribunal consisted of three arbitrators.
8. Respondent No. 1 filed their claim for recovery of Rs.537.88 lacs
against the appellant before the Arbitral Tribunal towards their
outstanding dues of various natures. The appellant contested the claim of
the respondent.
9. By award dated 10.05.2008, the Arbitral Tribunal partly allowed the
claim of respondent No.1 and accordingly awarded them a total sum of
Rs.356.78 lacs. The Arbitral Tribunal also awarded 10% p.a. simple interest
payable on the awarded sum (Rs.356.78 lacs) from the date of accrual of
cause of action till the date of award and further awarded future interest
at the rate of 12% p.a. on the awarded sum, i.e., Rs.451.49 lacs (Rs.356.78
lacs principal sum + Rs.94.71 lacs interest = Rs.451.49 lacs) payable from
the date of award till recovery.
10. The appellant, felt aggrieved, challenged the legality of the
aforesaid award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 before the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, who by order dated
24.12.2010 partly allowed the application and modified the award
accordingly.
11. The appellant, felt aggrieved, challenged the order of the Additional
District Judge and filed appeal before the High Court. By impugned order,
the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the
Additional District Judge.
12. Felt aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of
special leave before this Court.
13. Heard Mr. Gaurab Banerji, learned senior counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Sarvjit Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
14. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was only one.
According to him, the High Court while dismissing the appeal and in
principle upholding of the award of the Arbitral Tribunal wrongly awarded
interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and 18% p.a. in place of 10% and 12% p.a.
which was awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal. It was, therefore, his
submission that this error appears to be more in the nature of
typographical error rather than on merits and hence needs to be corrected
by this Court by restoring the same rate of interest which was awarded by
the Arbitral Tribunal in the award dated 10.05.2008 and upheld by
Additional District Judge vide his order dated 24.12.2010, i.e., 10% and
12% respectively as detailed above in para 9.
15. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 candidly admitted the error
committed by the High Court in the order while awarding the interest.
Respondent No.1 also in their counter at page 204 admitted the error, which
was pointed out by the appellant while awarding the rate of interest.
16. In our opinion, the submission urged by the appellant appears to be
correct and hence it deserves to be accepted. As mentioned above, even the
respondent could not oppose the prayer made by the appellant which appear
to be more in the nature of typographical error.
17. In the light of foregoing discussion, which is sufficient, the appeal
succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned order is modified to the extent
that the awarded amount shall carry the interest at the same rates which
were awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal in the award dated 10.5.2008. In
other words, the awarded sum shall carry interest at the rate 10% p.a.
payable from the date of accrual of cause of action till the date of award
and shall further carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of
award till recovery on the awarded sum as detailed in para 9 above.
18. No costs.
………...................................J.
[J. CHELAMESWAR]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;
July 04, 2016
-----------------------
7
