State of Orissa Vs. J.P. Lath
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.4388 fo 1986.
Petitioner: State of Orissa
Respondent: J.P. Lath
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.4388 fo 1986.
Judges: LALIT MOHAN SHARMA & J.S. VERMA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 07, 1989
Head Note:
ARBITRATION
Award – Unreasoned award – Valid vide JT 1989(2) SC 285.
Award of interest – Case arising before coming into force of the Interest Act, 1978 – The Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award interest.
(Executive Engineer (Irrigation) Balimela and others v. Abhaduta Jena and others, JT 1987 (4) SC 8 – Followed.)
Cases Reffered:
1. Raipur Development Authority and others v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors and others, JT 1989 (2) SC 285 = (1989) 2 SCC 721 – Followed.
2. Executive Engineer (Irrigation) Balimela and others v. Abhaduta Jena and others, JT 1987 (4) SC 8 = (1988) 1 SCC 418 – Followed.
2. Executive Engineer (Irrigation) Balimela and others v. Abhaduta Jena and others, JT 1987 (4) SC 8 = (1988) 1 SCC 418 – Followed.
JUDGEMENT:
SHARMA, J. :
1. This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment of the Orissa High Court in an appeal under s.39 of the Arbitration Act.
2. On reference of a dispute to an arbitrator in 1977 an award was made and filed in Court. The appellant raised several objections to the prayer of the claimant for making it a rule of the Court. It was inter alia contended that the award was illegal as it was not supported by reasons. This question now stands concluded against the appellant by the judgment of a Bench of five Judges, in the case of Raipur Development Authority and others vs. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors and others: (1989) 2 SCC 721. So far the other questions are concerned, they have been rightly rejected by the High Court and it is not necessary to discuss them any further. The only point which survives is with respect to the grant of interest in the award. The case arose before the coming in force of the Interest Act, 1978, and in view of the decision of this Court in Executive Engineer (Irrigation) Balimela and others vs. Abhaduta Jena and others: (1988) 1 SCC 418, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to allow the interest as has been done. The award is, therefore, modified to that extent. Subject to the above, the decision of the High Court is confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
1. This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment of the Orissa High Court in an appeal under s.39 of the Arbitration Act.
2. On reference of a dispute to an arbitrator in 1977 an award was made and filed in Court. The appellant raised several objections to the prayer of the claimant for making it a rule of the Court. It was inter alia contended that the award was illegal as it was not supported by reasons. This question now stands concluded against the appellant by the judgment of a Bench of five Judges, in the case of Raipur Development Authority and others vs. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors and others: (1989) 2 SCC 721. So far the other questions are concerned, they have been rightly rejected by the High Court and it is not necessary to discuss them any further. The only point which survives is with respect to the grant of interest in the award. The case arose before the coming in force of the Interest Act, 1978, and in view of the decision of this Court in Executive Engineer (Irrigation) Balimela and others vs. Abhaduta Jena and others: (1988) 1 SCC 418, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to allow the interest as has been done. The award is, therefore, modified to that extent. Subject to the above, the decision of the High Court is confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
