- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Orissa v. Lal Chand Kapani .
Factual and Procedural Background
This case is an appeal by the State of Orissa, pursued pursuant to special leave, challenging a High Court judgment arising out of arbitration proceedings. The underlying dispute concerns the propriety of interest awarded by the arbitrator.
The arbitrator awarded Rs 63,186 by way of interest against a claim of Rs 2,74,230. The Subordinate Judge accepted this award on interest and made it a rule of the court. The State of Orissa appealed to the High Court, which upheld the arbitrator’s direction for payment of interest as legal and correct. No further details of the High Court’s reasoning are provided. The State then approached the Supreme Court in the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an arbitrator could lawfully award interest for the pre-reference period when the award was made on March 7, 1979, i.e., before the Interest Act, 1978 (which came into force in August 1981) was in force.
- Whether the interest component of Rs 63,186 in the award can be identified as pre-reference interest (as opposed to pendente lite interest), and, if not clearly identifiable, whether the award on interest should be set aside or remanded.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The award dated March 7, 1979 predates the commencement of the Interest Act, 1978 (which came into force in August 1981); under the then-prevailing law, the claimant was not entitled to interest for the pre-reference period, so the interest portion of the award should be struck down.
- Reliance was placed on Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Balimela v. Abhaduta Jena, (1988) 1 SCC 418, which held that before the 1978 Act came into force, an arbitrator had no power to award interest for the period before institution/reference.
Respondent's Arguments
This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Balimela v. Abhaduta Jena, (1988) 1 SCC 418 |
- Under the Interest Act, 1839, an arbitrator had no power to award interest for the pre-institution/pre-reference period; after the Interest Act, 1978, an arbitrator has the same power as a court to award such interest. - Also held that pendente lite interest was not awardable by an arbitrator as the arbitrator is not a “court” under Section 34 CPC when the reference is not by a court in a pending suit. |
The Court reaffirmed that pre-reference interest can be awarded only if, on the date of the award, the 1978 Act was in force. As the award here was made on March 7, 1979 (before the 1978 Act came into force in August 1981), pre-reference interest would not be permissible. However, because the award did not specify the period or rate, the Court could not conclude that the awarded Rs 63,186 included pre-reference interest. |
| Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa v. G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508 | Reversed the view in Abhaduta Jena on pendente lite interest, recognizing the arbitrator’s authority to grant interest for the period from the date of reference to the date of the award. | Cited to clarify that only the pendente lite aspect of Abhaduta Jena was overruled; the rule on pre-reference interest remained intact. The Court noted that pendente lite interest was not specifically in issue in the present case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by reiterating the legal position derived from Abhaduta Jena: prior to the commencement of the Interest Act, 1978, there was no provision enabling an arbitrator to award interest for the pre-reference period. Consequently, pre-reference interest can be awarded only if the 1978 Act was in force on the date of the award. The Court further noted that although Abhaduta Jena had denied arbitrators the power to award pendente lite interest (the period from the date of reference to the date of the award), that view was later reversed by G.C. Roy. The present matter, however, did not specifically turn on pendente lite interest.
Applying these principles, the appellant argued that, since the arbitrator’s award was dated March 7, 1979—before the 1978 Act came into force—pre-reference interest could not legally be awarded. The Court acknowledged this proposition as a correct statement of law. Nevertheless, it identified a critical evidentiary and drafting deficiency: the award merely recorded a lump sum of Rs 63,186 as “interest” without any indication of the period covered or the rate applied. The Subordinate Judge had also noted the absence of such particulars.
Owing to this lack of clarity, the Court held it was not possible to infer that the awarded interest encompassed a pre-reference component (as distinct from pendente lite interest). Given this ambiguity, there was no sufficient basis to strike down the interest component on the ground urged by the State.
The Court also rejected the idea of remanding the matter to the arbitrator. The contract was from 1971, the reference and award were decades old, and at this late stage reopening proceedings was not in the interests of justice, particularly when there was no clear indication that the award included pre-reference interest.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. There is no order as to costs. The Court declined to set aside the award on interest or to remand the matter, primarily because the award did not specify the period or rate of interest and thus did not clearly show inclusion of pre-reference interest.
Implications: The immediate effect is that the interest awarded by the arbitrator stands as upheld by the High Court. The decision reiterates existing principles: pre-reference interest cannot be awarded where the award predates the commencement of the Interest Act, 1978, unless the statutory foundation exists on the date of the award; however, interference will not be warranted where the award is ambiguous and does not disclose that pre-reference interest was actually granted. No broader doctrinal innovation or new precedent was set beyond applying and clarifying existing law to the facts at hand.
Order
1. This is an appeal pursuant to the special leave granted in appeal filed by the State of Orissa against the judgment of the High Court. The matter arises out of arbitration proceedings and the dispute is regarding the interest that was awarded.
2. The arbitrator awarded the amount of Rs 63,186 by way of interest though the claim was of Rs 2,74,230. The Subordinate Judge accepted the award regarding the interest and also made it the rule of the court. Aggrieved by the same the State of Orissa filed an appeal before the High Court and it is held that the direction for payment of interest given by the arbitrator is legal and correct. No other details are given in the judgment of the High Court.
3. In this appeal before us, Mr R.K Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award in the instant case was passed on March 7, 1979 i.e prior to the Interest Act (i.e 1978 Interest Act which came into force in August 1981) and as the position stood then the claimant was not entitled to interest during the pre-reference period and, therefore, the interest part of it should be struck down. The learned counsel placed considerable reliance on the judgment of this Court in Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Balimela v. Abhaduta Jena (1988) 1 SCC 418 wherein it was held:
“Again, we must look elsewhere to discover the right of the arbitrator to award interest before the institution of the proceedings, in cases where the proceedings had concluded before the commencement of the Interest Act of 1978. While under the Interest Act of 1978 the expression ‘court’ was defined to include an arbitrator, under the Interest Act of 1839 it was not so defined. The result is that while in cases arising after the commencement of Interest Act of 1978 an arbitrator has the same power as the court to award interest up to the date of institution of the proceedings, in cases which arose prior to the commencement of the 1978 Act the arbitrator has no such power under the Interest Act of 1839.”
It is thus clear that before the 1978 Interest Act came into force there was no provision under which the interest for the pre-reference period could be granted. In this case, the Supreme Court also held that the interest pendente lite i.e from the date of reference to the date of the award, the claimants would not be entitled to the same for the reason that arbitrator is not a court within the meaning of Section 34 CPC since the reference was not by a court in a pending suit. This view regarding the interest pendente lite however has been reversed in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa v. G.C Roy (1992) 1 SCC 508. Regarding the interest during the pre-reference period, the view taken in Abhaduta Jena case (1988) 1 SCC 418 is not disturbed. Therefore the interest during the pre-reference period can be awarded provided on the date of the award, 1978 Interest Act was in force. In the instant case, we are not specifically concerned with the interest pendente lite. The submission on behalf of the State with reference to the interest during pre-reference period is that admittedly the proceedings before the arbitrator were initiated in the year 1977 and the award was passed on March 7, 1979 namely before the 1978 Interest Act came into force and therefore the interest during the pre-reference period cannot be awarded. But the difficulty in the instant case is that the interest of Rs 63,186 as shown in the award cannot necessarily be taken as interest for the pre-reference period. It is not clear whether the interest so awarded includes the pendente lite interest and the period also has not been indicated. As a matter of fact, the learned Subordinate Judge who made the award a rule of the court has clearly noted that the plaintiff claimed interest and the learned arbitrator allowed Rs 63,186 without noting the period or the rate of interest. Therefore, it is difficult to infer that the interest awarded includes interest during the pre-reference period as well as the period during which the arbitration proceedings were pending (pendente lite). Therefore the question of remanding it to the arbitrator does not arise. Even otherwise this matter was referred to the arbitrator in respect of an agreement entered into in the year 1971 and we do not think that at this distance of time it is in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned judgment and reopen all the proceedings, particularly when there is no clear indication that the impugned award included the interest during the pre-reference period. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert