UNION OF INDIA Vs. PERUMALIL GRANITE CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The primary issue raised in this appeal, preferred by the Union of India represented by the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway, Ernakulam, is whether the impugned Award of the Arbitral Tribunal, which has awarded pendente lite interest to the respondent herein-being the claimant before the said Tribunal-even when the contract between the parties provided that such interest shall not be awarded, is legally correct or otherwise.

(2.) When I go through the facts involved in this case, I am aware that this Court had considered an identical set of facts and circumstances in the case of another claimant and that a judgment had been delivered in Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway v. P.Rajendran Asari (Arb.A.No.35 of 2016) and has answered affirmatively therein that in the face of specific provisions in the contract against grant of pendente lite interest, the provisions of Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) would render it impossible for the Arbitral Tribunal to award such.

(3.) The said judgment deals with these issues in great detail and I, therefore, deem it appropriate that it be extracted in full, so as to enable its full reading, as under:-