The value of future interest will be factored into the total amount of the award.

The Calcutta High Court has declared that the award of future or post-award interest is not advisory, but rather a requirement of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), and that it should be given full consideration.

Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya's single bench reaffirmed that post-award interest is a protection against late payment of the sum awarded to the award holder.

In the instant case titled Future Market Networks Limited v. Laxmi Pat Surana the two issues raised before the High Court of Calcutta for clarification were:

Whether the Award would automatically include interest, which would have an impact on the conditions that could be imposed for the award to be granted a stay under section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
Whether it's appropriate to include the amount of anticipated interest in the award sum when calculating the security for the stay on the award?

With regard to the first issue, although the proviso to section 36(3) of the Act requires the court to give due consideration to the provisions of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when granting a stay of a money decree, the mandate has been interpreted as a guiding principle for the Court when granting a stay of an arbitral award. Malwa Strips Private Limited versus Jyoti Limited; (2009) 2 SCC 426 reaffirms that compelling reasons must be established in order for a money decree to be stayed. The Supreme Court advocated a prudent exercise of discretion based on the facts and circumstances of the case, holding that execution of a money order is not typically stopped in the absence of satisfaction of the money decree. In this instance, all three parties, including the respondent no. 1 award-holder, have asked for the impugned award to be set aside. The applications have already begun to be heard in this Court. As a result, discretion must be used in favour of the petitioner who requests a stay of the award based on the current facts. Furthermore, if the award is not stayed and respondent no. 1 proceeds with the execution of the Award, which he has already begun, the applications for setting aside the Award may become futile in the short term. As a result, this court believes it appropriate to grant a stay of the Arbitral Award in order to allow the applications filed under section 34 of the Act to be heard.

With regard to the second issue, for the purpose of assessing the security for the stay on the award, the High Court of Calcutta determined that the complete value of the future interest should be included in the sum of the award. It went on to say that future interest is not an option under the Act, but rather a requirement.

The Court categorically held that,

"The principle of speedy and effective resolution of arbitral processes recognizes the financial investments made by a person to an arbitration agreement and the consequent need to ensure that the person is returned the value of his investment and compensated for the intervening losses suffered by him. Delayed recovery is a serious clog in this process and may also lead to obliteration of the investment and the very purpose for which money was put in the project. The person putting in money may also lose the chance to recover the investments in the event of a huge delay in realizing the amount despite a decree in his favour."