AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 37(1)(b) of the Act
  • Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
  • The Act
  • Sections 31(7)(a) and (b) of the Act
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
  • Section 31(7)(b) of the Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 37(1)(b) of the Act
  • Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
  • The Act
  • Sections 31(7)(a) and (b) of the Act
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
  • Section 31(7)(b) of the Act
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

An agreement (Agreement No. 11 of 1989-1990) for construction of a residential complex at Shimla led to disputes between the present appellants and respondent. Pursuant to the arbitration clause, an arbitrator adjudicated the parties’ claims and counter-claims, issuing an award on 12-8-1998. The appellants challenged that award under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”). The High Court accepted the objections on the ground that no reasons accompanied the award and remitted the matter to the arbitrator.

After remand, a reasoned award dated 14-2-2001 was passed. The appellants again filed objections and, on 24-5-2001, deposited the entire award amount in the High Court. On 26-2-2008 a Single Judge dismissed the objections; an intra-court appeal is still pending. Meanwhile, on 12-8-2008 the respondent initiated execution proceedings. The pivotal dispute before the executing court—and subsequently the High Court—was whether the respondent was entitled to post-award interest at 18% per annum. The High Court ruled in the respondent’s favour, prompting the present appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether, under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the deposit of the full award amount by the appellants into the High Court on 24-5-2001 constitutes “payment” to the respondent, thereby terminating the appellants’ liability to pay post-award interest at 18% per annum.
  2. Consequently, from which date does post-award interest cease to run on the award amount?

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
State of Haryana v. S.L. Arora & Co., (2010) 3 SCC 690 Clarified that, absent explicit arbitral discretion, post-award interest is mandatory at 18% p.a. under Section 31(7)(b) of the Act. The Court relied on this decision to affirm that 18% p.a. interest applies unless satisfied earlier, but proceeded to determine when “payment” occurred for terminating interest.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first noted that the arbitrator did not exercise discretion regarding post-award interest; therefore, by statutory mandate (Section 31(7)(b) of the Act) the award carried interest at 18% p.a. until “payment.”

Because the Act does not define “payment,” the Court consulted standard dictionaries and the Law Lexicon, concluding that, in the present statutory context, “payment” signifies extinguishment or satisfaction of the award debt. Depositing the award amount into court effectively places the funds at the decree-holder’s disposal and therefore satisfies the award.

Applying this interpretation, the Court held that the appellants’ deposit on 24-5-2001 extinguished their liability, and interest could not accrue beyond that date. The High Court erred in directing interest at 18% p.a. beyond 24-5-2001.

Holding and Implications

Appeal allowed in part. The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order, holding that the appellants are liable to pay interest at 18% per annum only from the date of the award (14-2-2001) until 24-5-2001. No interest is payable thereafter.

Implications: The judgment clarifies that, for purposes of Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, deposit of the award amount into court constitutes “payment,” stopping the accrual of post-award interest. The High Court must recalculate the amount due; any excess already withdrawn by the respondent must be refunded within two months of such recalculation. The ruling does not establish a new legal test but reinforces the statutory interpretation of “payment” in arbitration award executions.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Himachal Pradesh Housing And Urban Development Authority And Another v. Ranjit Singh Rana .

    R.M Lodha, J.— Leave granted. Pursuant to the agreement between the parties being Agreement No. 11 of 1989-1990 concerning construction of a residential complex at Shimla, certain disputes arose. As per the terms of the contract, the arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the claims of the respondent and counterclaims of the appellants.

    2. On 12-8-1998, the arbitrator passed the award. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed objections under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”). The objections were accepted by the High Court to the extent that the reasons were not given by the arbitrator and, accordingly, the matter was sent back to the arbitrator for giving reasons in support of the award.

    3. After remand, the arbitrator considered the matter and passed the award on 14-2-2001. The appellants filed objections against the award dated 14-2-2001. They also deposited the entire amount due under the award before the High Court on 24-5-2001.

    4. The objections filed by the appellants were ultimately rejected by the Single Judge of the High Court on 26-2-2008. Against this order, an intra-court appeal is said to be pending. The respondent, however, started execution of the award dated 14-2-2001 by filing an execution petition on 12-8-2008. The appellants filed objections to the execution petition.

    5. The question before the High Court was whether the respondent was entitled to interest @ 18% p.a from the date of the award dated 14-2-2001 till the date of the actual payment to the respondent.

    6. The High Court considered the diverse provisions of the Act including Sections 31(7)(a) and (b) of the Act and few decisions of this Court and ultimately held that the respondent was entitled to post-award interest @ 18% p.a from the date of the award till the date of the actual payment. It is this order which is in appeal before us.

    7. There is no dispute that the entire amount due under the award dated 14-2-2001 was deposited by the appellants before the High Court on 24-5-2001. The question that arises for determination before us is, whether deposit of the entire award amount by the appellants on 24-5-2001 into the High Court amounts to payment to the respondent and the appellants' liability to pay interest @ 18% p.a from the date of the award ceased from that date.

    8. Sections 31(7)(a) and (b) of the Act read as under:

    “31. (7)(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, where and insofar as an arbitral award is for the payment of money, the Arbitral Tribunal may include in the sum for which the award is made interest, at such rate as it deems reasonable, on the whole or any part of the money, for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made.
    (b) A sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall, unless the award otherwise directs, carry interest at the rate of eighteen per centum per annum from the date of the award to the date of payment.”

    9. The above provision has been recently considered by this Court in State of Haryana v. S.L Arora & Co. (2010) 3 SCC 690 This Court held as under:

    “23. … In a nutshell, in regard to pre-award period, interest has to be awarded as specified in the contract and in the absence of contract, as per discretion of the Arbitral Tribunal. On the other hand, in regard to the post-award period, interest is payable as per the discretion of the Arbitral Tribunal and in the absence of exercise of such discretion, at a mandatory statutory rate of 18% per annum.”

    This Court further observed in para 24.6 as under:

    “24.6 … But if the award is silent in regard to the interest from the date of award, or does not specify the rate of interest from the date of award, then the party in whose favour an award for money has been made, will be entitled to interest at 18% per annum from the date of award. He may claim the said amount in execution even though there is no reference to any post-award interest in the award. Even if the pre-award interest is at much lower rate, if the award is silent in regard to post-award interest, the claimant will be entitled to post-award interest at the higher rate of 18% per annum.”

    10. The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the arbitrator has not exercised any discretion in the matter pertaining to the interest for the post-award period. Obviously, in absence thereof, by virtue of Section 31(7)(b) of the Act, the award would carry interest @ 18% p.a from the date of the award till the date of the payment.

    11. Whether 24-5-2001 when the entire award amount was deposited by the appellants into the High Court is the date of payment?

    12. “Payment” is not defined in the Act. Concise Oxford English Dictionary (10th Edn., Revised) defines “payment”:

    “Payment.—(1) The action of paying or the process of being paid. (2) An amount paid or payable.”

    13. Webster Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edn.) Vol. 2 defines “payment”:

    “Payment.—(1) the act of paying.
    (2) Pay; requital; recompense.”

    14. The Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 2nd Edn. Reprint, inter alia, states:

    “payment is defined to be the act of paying, or that which is paid; discharge of a debt, obligation or duty; satisfaction of claim; recompense; the fulfilment of a promise or the performance of an agreement; the discharge in money of a sum due”.

    15. The word “payment” may have different meaning in different context but in the context of Section 37(1)(b); it means extinguishment of the liability arising under the award. It signifies satisfaction of the award. The deposit of the award amount into the court is nothing but a payment to the credit of the decree-holder. In this view, once the award amount was deposited by the appellants before the High Court on 24-5-2001, the liability of post-award interest from 24-5-2001 ceased. The High Court, thus, was not right in directing the appellants to pay the interest @ 18% p.a beyond 24-5-2001.

    16. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part. The impugned order of the High Court is modified and it is directed that the appellants shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a for the post-award period from the date of award until 24-5-2001. After 24-5-2001, the appellants are not liable to pay any interest on the award amount under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act.

    17. We are informed by Mr Y. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants that the amount as per the impugned order dated 5-3-2009 was deposited by the appellants which has been withdrawn by the respondent. In the light of this, we observe that the High Court shall now redetermine the amount due and payable to the respondent under the award and the post-award interest as indicated above. The excess amount, if withdrawn by the respondent shall be refunded to the appellants within two months of redetermination by the High Court.

    18. No costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Himachal Pradesh Housing And Urban Development Authority And Another v. Ranjit Singh Rana .
    (Mar 12, 2012)