SHIVA UDYOG MANDAL Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed on a limited point, that is regarding the grant of interest during the pendency of the proceedings before the arbitrator. Lower appellate court has denied the interest pendente lite on the basis of the decision of the supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dandasi Sahu, A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 1791, in which it was held that interest pendente lite is not within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

(2.) IN the later judgment by Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department Government of Orissa v. G. C. Roy, J. T. 1991 (6) S. C. 349 it has been held that arbitrator can grant both the interest pendente lite and for future as well. Impliedly the judgment in Dandasi's case (supra) stands overruled. I do not find any logic in the argument of the counsel for the respondents that the impugned order of the lower appellant Court cannot be set aside because it does not suffer from any material irregularity as it has applied the law as it stood on the date, the order was passed by the lower appellant Court. It is correct that the lower appellate Court had applied the law as it stood on the date, it rendered the judgment but the judgment on which reliance was placed by the lower appellate Court stood impliedly overruled and the law is to be applied as it stood declared by the Supreme Court of India. In G. C. Roy's case (supra), the Supreme Court held as Under: