HOME DECOLAM Vs. JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , J.

(2.) THE petitioner, a climnt, filed a petition (S. No. 1854-A/86) under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act .(for short 'the Act') for making award dated 4th August, 1986 of the third respondent, the sole arbitrator, rule of the court.

(3.) THEN, in Ram Nath Mehra v. Union of India (S. No. 1510-A/84) decided on 7th December, 1988(10) Sabharwal, J. appears to have drawn a distinction where reference to arbitration' is made with or without the intervention of the court, i.e.. Chapter-II or Chapter-III of the Act. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Executive Engineer Irrigation Galimala's case (supra), Uttam Singh Duggal v Union of India's case (supra) and Union of India v. Globe Trading Corporation's case (supra). He did not expressly disagree with the view expressed by me in Globe Trading Corporation's case that there was no difference when the reference to arbitration was made without intervention of a court under Chapter-II or with intervention of a court under Chapter-111 of the Act and that in both the cases the arbitrator would have no jurisdiction to award interest pendente lite. Sabharwal, J. was, however, of the view that since the disputes relating to interest did not appear to have been referred to arbitration in Globe Trading Corporation's case "and as such reference to arbitration was not made in the course of a suit" and further that "the dispute as regards claim of interest was not the subject matter of reference in the said case." He held that in the case before him the question of interest had been referred to arbitration in the course of a suit (when in fact reference was made on a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act) and that. that point was covered by the case of Uttam Singh Duggal v. Union of India (supra). He, therefore upheld the award of interest pendent-life.