The passage of latest arbitration act has brought in a sea of changes in the field of alternative dispute resolution in India, bringing it to the international arena. However, with the passage of time, undeniably, it has also metamorphosed into different being, either for good or bad, through the judicial reasoning and practice, one such example is of the apex court’s verdict in the ONGC Vs Sawpipes case. Likewise, there are still a lot of issues that are yet to be settled in this domain. One such example is the omission on the part of the arbitrator to award interest over the award.
The power of an arbitrator to award interest over to the successful claimant is contained in the Section 31 (7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Of course, this power, as always, will be subject to those that are stated in the arbitration agreement itself. This provision, apart from suggesting that interest be provided where ever possible, also prescribes that in case the arbitration agreement is silent on the rate of interest that is to be awarded it will be given at a rate of 18% per annum for the whole period 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. Here we have to notice the two periods over which interest is being prescribed to be given. One is for the period from when the cause of action arose till the award is given (pre award period) and the other is for the period from when the award is made till its realization (post award). Furthermore, two more types of interest can be awarded one is for the period during which the suit is pending (pendente lite) and from the date on which the decree has been made till its realization. Since these two period are of no relevance for the subject matter I refrain from going any further with this. At any rate the award of interest is determined by the provisions of the arbitration agreement itself. The parties are at an option either to have a pre-determined rate of interest over a period or not to have any interest at all. However, this will not be applicable to the period post the award. The Supreme Court has categorically stated that, “any provision in the contract barring interest will operate only till the date of award and not thereafter”[1], thus curtailing the liberty of the parties to contract out the interest for the post award period. A unique issue crops up in the case of the interest that is leviable for the pre-award period. Though the power of the arbitrary tribunal to award interest over the pre-award period is undisputed, albeit within the constraints dictated by the arbitration agreement, issues arises when the arbitral tribunal refuses to grant interest over the pre-award period based on the sole fact that it has been prohibited in the contract, in spite of the fact that the defaulting party has unreasonably withheld the payment of principal amount for a genuinely long period of time. It is to be noted that the underlying principle behind the awarding of interest, in general, is that the person who keeps the money deprives the other of its profit potentiality and therefore deserves compensation.[2] Thus, a party aggrieved, because of a mistake committed by the other party, will be positively entitled to the interest money for the pre-referral period, if not for the prohibitive clause in the arbitration agreement. If such being the case the aggrieved party’s only option is to move to the court to set aside the award by way of section 34 of the arbitration act. This provision is marred by controversies right from the day on which the act came into force. The grounds upon which an aggrieved party can approach the court, by statue, is very limited. In the present case the situation worsens, since the arbitration agreement itself provides that the interest shall not be awarded for the pre-award period, leaving him in lurch. Under section 34 of the act, the grounds upon which a person can ask the court to set aside the award are very limited, putatively to limit the scope of judicial intervention over the arbitration proceedings itself. The grounds that are stated under section 34 are as follows
- Incapacity of the party
- Arbitration agreement not being valid
- Proper notice not being served to the party
- Award crosses the scope offered by the terms of reference made to the arbitrators
- Composition of the tribunal not according to the agreement
- Subject matter is inarbitrable
- Award is in conflict with the public policy of India
The above stated grounds have been subject to extensive analysis. However, the only resort amongst the above stated grounds for an aggrieved party in the present case is to challenge the award by stating that it is in conflict with the public policy of India. This too is a precarious ground, for it is subjective term that will be decided by the court. The icing on the cake is that there are umpteen numbers of judgments of the Supreme Court, which categorically states that court shall refrain from interfering with the rate of interest that is awarded by the arbitral tribunal.[3] The ground of public policy as stated earlier has been subject to much controversy, especially after the ONGC V. Sawpipes cases, where the ambit of judicial interference under section 34 over the arbitral award was widened. In spite of such widening of the ambit a petition to set aside an award in most cases are liable to be rejected, particularly when there is a provision in the arbitration agreement preventing the same. Thus the effective space for a party to maneuver is very limited. The claims can only be based upon the equity, which is not strong enough a contention to set aside an award under section 34 of the act. One option that can be effective in such situation is to seek the court to exercise its powers under Art.142 of the Constitution of India, which invariably can only be exercised as a last resort and that too in the Supreme Court. Thus an aggrieved party is left in a lurch as far as his claims are concerned.
In the present day highly competitive business world such instances occurs frequently. The root cause for such issues is the clause in the contract that prevents the award of interest over a particular period. Many employers, being in an advantageous position, force this clause into the contract that they enter with the contractors. The only effective remedy can to add an exception in such clauses stating that interest can be awarded wherever the principal amount has been withheld by one party for an unreasonably long period of time, with the time period stated expressly in the contract, considering the unique facts and circumstances upon which they enter into the said contract.
[1] Sayeed Ahmed & Co. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 3 Arb LR 29
[2] Municipal Committee, Patiala v. Krishan Kumar Bansal, (2002) 3 RAJ 15
[3] See Sayeed Ahmed & Co. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 3 Arb LR 29, 37
