{"id":224578,"date":"1998-05-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-05-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998"},"modified":"2017-10-04T23:27:09","modified_gmt":"2017-10-04T17:57:09","slug":"shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998","title":{"rendered":"Shiv Singh vs N.P.C.C. Ltd. on 25 May, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Shiv Singh vs N.P.C.C. Ltd. on 25 May, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 73 (1998) DLT 582, 1998 (46) DRJ 189<\/div>\n
Author: J Goel<\/div>\n
Bench: J Goel<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
J.B. Goel, J.<\/p>\n
1.    By  this  Order, a composite application, IA No.7002\/93 filed  by  the petitioner,  seeking  modification of the Award dated 28.8.1992  passed  by Shri  Farooq  Saulat  as Arbitrator, under Section 15  of  the  Arbitration Act,1940 (for short “the Act”) and also for condensation of delay in  filing this application is being disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Briefly,  the facts are that the execution of certain works at  Manari Bhati  Unit, P.O. Dharasu, Distt. Uttarkashi (UP) was awarded to the  petitioner  by  the respondent under four  contracts\/orders  No.599\/5203  dated 16.2.1983,  No.2172 dated 1.4.1984, No. 11345\/150 dated 12.4.1984  and  No. 3691\/2375 dated 23.7.1986.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Disputes  arose between the parties. The contracts contained  arbitration  agreement  and as provided in the contract the  Chairman  &  Managing Director of the respondent appointed Shri Farooq Saulat as an Arbitrator on 5.10.1987.  The Arbitrator entered upon the reference. Claims  and  counter claims  were filed by the parties and after hearing the parties, the  Arbitrator gave his award dated 28.8.1992 awarding to the claimant\/petitioner a sum of Rs.4,94,012\/- and also awarded interest @ 16.5% per annum from  28th August, 1992 till date of payment of award or decree whichever is earlier.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Pendente lite interest from the date of reference to date of award has not  been allowed. The claimant is aggrieved from this part of  the  award. Only the petitioner has filed objections against the award.\n<\/p>\n
5.   According  to  him, he got knowledge of filing of the award  from  the office  of the respondent at Dharasu in January,1993 whereas the notice  of filing  of award was accepted on behalf of the petitioner in Court  by  his Advocate  on 9.3.1993 and the objections were actually filed  belatedly  on 5.8.1993. The petitioner has claimed condensation of delay caused in  filing the objections.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The  grounds for condensation of delay as pleaded in paras 7 and  8  of the application are that the delay has been caused due to the fact that the petitioner  being situated in a remote area was unable to pursue this  case vigorously and also that he was having personal difficulty due to which  he was  unable to file this application within the time stipulated; the  delay has  been caused due to no fault of the applicant and he has been  pursuing the arbitration proceedings diligently; he has been financially ruined  and it will rehabilitate him if this part of interest is allowed to him.\n<\/p>\n
7.   On merit the Award has been challenged on the ground that the Arbitrator  has not awarded interest for pendente lite ignoring the Supreme  Court decision in Secretary, Irrigation Deptt. Government of Orissa and Ors.  Vs. G.C. Roy  which was pronounced before the award was made. The respondent contested the objections and also the  application for  condensation of delay. It is alleged that the award is  a  non-speaking award  and the Arbitrator has the discretion to award interest or  not  and the award cannot be modified. On the question of condensation, it is pleaded that the application does not disclose any ground for condensation of delay; the objections were not filed in time and the delay has not been  explained and no ground is made out for condensation of delay.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Some  more  circumstances\/facts  for condensation of  delay  have  been alleged in his replication by the petitioner as noticed below. And delay is imputed due to negligence and in action of his Counsel and reliance for  it has been placed on the case of Rafiq & Another Vs. M\/s. Munshi Lal Another,  and relevant passage has been reproduced therein.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The objections were dismissed by P.N. Nag, J. on 7.1.1994 but  without going into the question of limitation.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The  petitioner had gone in appeal. The Division Bench in  appeal  set aside  the  judgment and decree and remanded the case on  the  question  of interest  and also for deciding the question of condensation of delay  which had not been gone into in the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
11.  I  have  heard learned Counsel for the parties. Coming  first  to  the question  of delay, learned Counsel for the petitioner has  contended  that the notice of the filing of Award was served on the petitioner through  his Advocate  on  9.3.1993;  however the petitioner on coming to  know  of  the filing  of award in Court in January, 1993 came to Delhi, engaged an  Advocate  and got objections and his affidavit prepared on 17.1.1993, gave  the same to the Counsel with his fee and that Advocate has not filed the objections  due  to his negligence or inaction or other lapse on his  part,  the
\npetitioner  should not be penalised. There is no lack of diligence or  bona fide nor negligence on his part. Sufficient ground for condensation of delay is  made out. Reliance has been placed on Rafiq & Another Vs.  Munshilal  & Another  (supra). He has also contended that by not awarding pendente  lite interest for a period of 5 years by ignoring the law of land, great  injustice  has  been  caused to the petitioner which would also  be  a  relevant consideration  for condensation of delay, rather than dismissing the  objections on technical ground of limitation.\n<\/p>\n
12.  Learned  Counsel  for the respondent on the other hand  has  contended that  the facts sought to be raised in replication were not pleaded in  the petition; the petition did not disclose sufficient cause and the petitioner is  guilty of negligence and in the facts and circumstances no  ground  for condensation  of delay is made out. He has relied on Ashis Kumar  Hazra  Vs. Rubi  Park Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. And Ors., , State  of
\nHaryana  Vs. Chander Mani, 1996 RLR 224 and S.K. Enterprises Vs. DDA,  1993 RLR (Note) 108:52 1990(3) DLT 281.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Notice  of the filing of the Award was not served on  the  petitioner. The Counsel appeared in Court on 9.3.1993, filed a Power of Attorney  dated 9.3.1993  signed by him and accepted the notice of the filing of the  Award on behalf of the petitioner on that day. These objections were not filed by him in time and were actually filed in Court on 5.8.1993. But the  explanation  for delay given in para 7 of the application is “the delay  has  been caused due to the fact that the petitioner being situated in a remote  area was unable to pursue this case vigorously and also due to the fact that the
\napplicant is having some personal difficulty due to which the applicant was unable  to  get this application filed within the time  stipulated  in  the notice.”\n<\/p>\n
14.  As  appears  from  affidavit which appears to  have  been  drafted  on 17.1.1993  but  got attested on 4.8.1993 that this was in support  of  some application.  There  would have been no other  application  perhaps  except these  objections. The explanation given in para 7 of this application  for condensation is somewhat not understandable. This position, however, becomes clear from the facts mentioned in rejoinder where the petitioner has pleaded  some more facts. He has stated that notice of the filing of  the  Award was  not served on him, the applicant on coming to know about it  from  the office of the respondent at Dharasu some time in the first week of January, 1993,  came  to  Delhi, contacted his Counsel, got  drafted  the  objection application  and  an affidavit was got signed from him on 17.1.93;  he  was assured  that  the  objections will be filed by him  within  the  statutory period  and  he depended on him and further stated that “it  has  now  been
\nrevealed  that the Counsel ….. has not filed the said objections in  time and  there is delay in filing the objections in the matter. That  the  said delay  is unintentional, bona fide and because of the mistake\/lapse on  the part  of  the Counsel for which the applicant cannot be penalised.  ”  This replication is accompanied by the copy of the petitioner’s affidavit  typed on  17.1.93.  The  period of 30 days for filing  objections  against  award starts  from the date notice is served which in this case was  accepted  by the  Counsel in Court on 9.3.1993. There was no occasion to  explain  delay before 9.3.1993.\n<\/p>\n
15.  The explanation for delay given in the application seems to have  been given under wrong advice.\n<\/p>\n
16.  From  the circumstances, now brought on record, it is clear  that  the petitioner had contacted the Advocate after getting some information  about the filing of the Award in Court, came to Delhi, gave instruction, power of attorney, got the objections and supporting affidavit drafted and obviously expecting that the Counsel will file the same in Court in time. It could be explained  by the Advocate engaged by the petitioner, why he has not  filed these  objections. These circumstances do not show  negligence,  indolence, want  of  bona fides or lack of diligence on the part  of  the  petitioner. Apparently,  it was due to negligence or inaction, if not  misdemeanour  on the  part  of the Counsel. It will not be possible for  the  petitioner  to produce  the said Counsel to explain his conduct to support his case.  This application  is not signed by the petitioner. It could be to wash  off  his negligence that the Counsel has pleaded the ground of delay in this  application of his own. The facts stated in the rejoinder seem to represent  the correct state of affairs and the question of condensation of delay has to be viewed in the light of these circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
17.  These  circumstances clearly show that the petitioner wanted to  challenge the Award, took appropriate steps but due to negligence, inaction  or misdemeanour on the part of the Counsel, these objections were not filed in time.\n<\/p>\n
18.  For condoning the delay the Court has to be satisfied that “sufficient cause” has been made out. What is a “sufficient cause” will depend upon the facts of the particular case. The scope and meaning of this expression  has
\nbeen gone into in great detail in State of Haryana Vs. Chander Mani & Ors.,
\n, where a large number of decisions have  been  referred to.\n<\/p>\n
19.  In  New  India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Misra, ,  it was held that discretion given by Section 5 cannot be viewed in  a rigid  rule  of  law. The expression “sufficient cause”  should  receive  a liberal construction.\n<\/p>\n
20.  In G. Ramegowda Major & Ors. Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, , it was held that the expression “sufficient  cause” must  receive a liberal construction so as to advance  substantial  justice
\nand generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be  condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or  lack  of bona fides is imputable to the party  seeking  condensation  of delay.\n<\/p>\n
21.  In  State of Haryana Vs. Chander Mani & Ors., 1996 (3) SC 371, it  was held  that  the  expression ‘sufficient cause’ should  be  considered  with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of  sufficient  cause for explaining every day’s delay.  The  Court  should decide  the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without  merit. In this case 109 days delay was condoned.\n<\/p>\n
22.  In Shakuntla Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari & Ors., ,  it
\nwas  held that unless want of bona fides or such inaction or negligence  as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the  application  must  not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to  be  condoned.\n<\/p>\n
23.  In O.P. Kathpalia Vs. Lakhmir Singh (dead) & Ors., , it
\nwas held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave  miscarriage of justice it would be a ground to condone the delay.\n<\/p>\n
24.  In  Collector,  Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs.  Mst.  Katiji  & Ors., , it was held that Section 5 was enacted in order  to
\nenable  the Court to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing  of matters on merits. The expression “sufficient cause” is adequately  elastic to enable the Court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the  ends of the justice that being the life purpose for the  existence  of the institution of Courts. It was explained that the expression everyday’s delay  must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should  be made.  The  doctrine  must be applied in rational  common  sense  pragmatic manner.  When substantial justice and technical considerations  are  pitted against  each other cause of substantial justice deserves to  be  preferred for  the  other side cannot claim to have vested right in  injustice  being done because of a non deliberate delay.\n<\/p>\n
25.  In  Smt.  Prabha Vs. Ram Parkash Kalra, (1987) Supp. SCC 338,  it  was held  that  the Court should not adopt an  injustice-oriented  approach  in rejecting the application for condensation of delay. 26.  In Ram Kishan & Anr. Vs. U.P. State Roadways Transport Corpn. &  Anr., (1994)  Sup.  2 SCC 507, it was held that where explanation  for  delay  in
\nfiling an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act was not found convincing but keeping in view the facts and circumstances and  cause of justice, the delay was condoned.\n<\/p>\n
27.  However,  in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd.,  Bhatinda Vs.  Union  of India & Ors.,  and Binod  Bihari  Singh  Vs.
\nUnion  of  India,  it was held that where  bona  fides  are
\nlacking, the Court should not encourage such person by condoning the delay.\n<\/p>\n
28.  In  Concord  of  India Insurance Co. Ltd . Vs. Nirmala  Devi  &  Ors.,
\n, in a case of negligence of the Counsel which  misled  a litigant  into  delayed  pursuit of his remedy, the default  in  delay  was condoned.\n<\/p>\n
29.  In Rafiq and Ors. Vs. Munshi Lal & Anr., , it was held that where a party has selected his Advocate, briefed him, paid his fee and has done everything in his power expected of him, should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanour of his Counsel.\n<\/p>\n
30.  In  Inder Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram AIR 1917 PC 156, it was observed  that the true guide for a Court to exercise discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
31.  The  law  thus  is well established that  the  expression  “sufficient cause”  must  receive a liberal construction so as to  advance  substantial justice  and delay should be condoned in the interest of justice  where  no gross negligence, or deliberate omission or lack of bona fides or diligence is imputable to a party seeking condensation of delay and where  substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other cause of substantial  justice deserves to be preferred; and a party should  normally not be penalised if such party is not being guilty of negligence or want of diligence but delay is caused due to negligence or inaction or misdemeanour of his Counsel.\n<\/p>\n
32.  Learned  Counsel for the respondent has relied on the  following  case law.\n<\/p>\n
33.  In  DDA Vs. Ramesh Kumar, 1996 RLR (Note) ,  a
\nDivision  Bench  of this Court declined to condone the delay where  it  was found  that  the  delay in filing the appeal had  not  been  satisfactorily explained and there was negligence and indolence on the part of the  appellant  or its officers in pursuing the matter. It obviously is based on  its own facts.\n<\/p>\n
34.  In  Shanti Devi Vs. Bhan Raj, 1989 RLR (N) 81, explanation  for  delay was  not found satisfactory by the two Courts below. In second appeal,  the learned Single Judge of this Court declined to interfere. This case also is based on its own facts.\n<\/p>\n
35.  In S.K. Enterprises Vs. DDA, 1993 RLR (N) 108, also the delay had  not been satisfactorily explained and proved and one of the ground was  wrongly stated.\n<\/p>\n
36.  As  held in State of Kerala Vs. E.K. Kuriyipe & Ors., 1981  Supp.  SCC 72,  the question whether or not there is sufficient cause for  condensation of  delay is a question of fact dependent upon the facts and  circumstances of the particular case.\n<\/p>\n
37.  Apart  from the fact that the delay in this case cannot be imputed  to the  petitioner but to his Counsel, there is other consideration of  denial of  substantial justice if delay is not condoned in this case.  As  noticed below  the learned Arbitrator has declined to award interest pendente  lite covering a period of about 5 years under misconception and ignorance of law declared by the Supreme Court and that part of the award is patently  wrong and contrary to law. The award to this extent, unless it is corrected  will result in substantial injustice and loss to the petitioner. In view of  the legal  position as noticed above to advance substantial justice,  technical ground of delay should not be allowed to stand in its way.\n<\/p>\n
38.  In the circumstances, delay caused in filing the objection against the award is condoned.\n<\/p>\n
39.  Coming  to merit of the objections whether the award suffers from  any error?\n<\/p>\n
40.  The  short  question is whether the learned Arbitrator  has  committed error  of  law  in not awarding interest pendente lite and  such  error  is apparent  on the face of the award. In the award, the Arbitrator has  given the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n
      “5.  No interest (pendente lite interest) from date of  reference to  date of award has been allowed as per the orders of  the  Supreme Court.”\n<\/p>\n
41.  In  Executive  Engineer (Irrigation) Vs. Abha Duta Jena, , a judgment of three Judges, two questions arose for consideration  of the Court, (1) the power of the Arbitrator to award interest for the period prior  to his entering upon reference; and (2) the power of the  Arbitrator to award interest for the period the dispute remained pending before him.\n<\/p>\n
42.  The  disputes in the present case is about the second  question,  that is,  with regard to pendente lite interest. In that case, it was held  that as  the Arbitrator was not a Court within the meaning of Section 34 of  the Code,  therefore, he could not award pendente lite interest. This has  been followed  by a two Judges Bench in State of Orissa & Ors. Vs.  Construction India,  and also in Gujarat W.S. & S.B. Vs. Unique Erectors (Gujarat)  Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 973, where following Jena’s case  it  was
\nheld  that  pendente  lite interest could not  be  awarded.  Obviously  the learned Arbitrator has relied on these cases.\n<\/p>\n
43.  This  question was referred to and has been considered by a  Constitution  Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department,  Government  of India & Ors. Vs. G.C. Roy,  and  the  aforesaid view taken in Jena’s case and which was followed in the other two cases has been overruled. The Constitution Bench has considered the question  regarding  the power of the Arbitrator to award interest pendente lite where  the agreement does not provide for grant of such interest nor does it prohibits such  grants, i.e., when the agreement is silent as to award of the  interest.  After considering various decisions, it was held that the  Arbitrator has the power to award pendente lite interest, though it does not mean that the  Arbitrator  should necessarily award interest pendente lite  in  every case. It is a matter within his discretion to be exercised in the light  of all the facts and circumstances of the case keeping the ends of justice  in view.  More recently, in Ramnath International Construction Pvt.  Ltd.  Vs. State  of U.P AIR 1998 SC 367 also, it was held that even if no  interest is  payable for pre-reference period, the Arbitrator is not  debarred  from
\ngranting  pendente lite interest. Power can be exercised analogous to  Section  34 of the Code. Grant of interest is a question of discretion of  the Arbitrator  and can be granted to do complete justice between the  parties. The Contractor was held entitled to interest from the date of reference  to date of award but not to interest for pre-reference period. (In this  case, Clause  1.18  of  the Contract specifically provided that  no  interest  is payable for any dues due from the Government).\n<\/p>\n
44.  An  Arbitrator  is  an alternative Forum for  resolution  of  disputes arising between the parties. The Arbitrator must act and make his award  in accordance with the general law of the land. It is now well settled that in the matter of award of interest for all the periods, the Arbitrator has the same powers as a Court has.\n<\/p>\n
45.  Under  Section 34 of the Code “where and in so far as a decree is  for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at  such rate  as  the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the  principal  sum  adjudged…….”.  And proviso to sub section (1) of Section 34 of  the  Code provides that:\n<\/p>\n
      “Provided  that  where the liability in relation to  the  sum  so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate  of such further interest may exceed six percent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is  no contractual  rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or  advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions.”\n<\/p>\n
p>46.  In  view  of the Constitution Bench decision in G.C. Roy’s  case,  the Arbitrator was competent to award pendente lite interest and such  interest could be awarded even if there is no specific contract between the  parties for payment of interest for pre-award period and as held in Ramnath  International  Construction  Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Arbitrator is  not  debarred from  granting  interest even if no interest is payable  for  pre-reference period.\n<\/p>\n
47.  G.C. Roy’s case was pronounced on 12.12.1991 whereas the award in  the present case was made later on on 28.8.1992. Apparently, the learned  Arbitrator  based his decision on the legal position as existed earlier on  the view taken in Jena’s case and two other cases referred to above. That  view had  been overruled by the Constitution Bench decision in G.C.  Roy’s  case and that later law was the law of the land. The law declared by the Supreme Court  is  binding  on all in view of Article 141 of  the  Constitution  of India. The Arbitrator was bound by this law and by ignoring the same he has acted  contrary to law in disallowing interest. For that he has given  reasons  in para 5 of the award as noticed earlier. He has committed error  of law and this is error apparent on the face of the award. The award to  that extent is contrary to law of the land and is not sustainable. This part  of the  award  is  independent and separate from the remaining  award  and  is liable to be corrected or set aside or modified.\n<\/p>\n
48.  Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the error can be corrected  by  this Court under Section 15 of the Act.  According  to  him, interest  from the date of the award till the date of payment of  award  or decree has been awarded @ 16.5% per annum. There seems to be no reason that the  Arbitrator would not have awarded pendente lite interest at this  rate in  view  of Section 34 of the Code but for the error of law  committed  by
\nhim.  In the facts and circumstances, remitting of this award to the  Arbitrator  will be an unnecessary exercise entailing waste of time,  avoidable expenses and inconvenience to the parties. This is an obvious error and  be corrected and the award modified suitably by this Court under Section 15 of
\nthe  Act. He has placed reliance on Upper Ganges Valley Electricity  Supply Company Ltd. Vs. The U.P. Electricity Board,  Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board Vs. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. &  Another,
\n and Executive Engineer Ganjam Vs. Sankar  Maharana  .\n<\/p>\n
49.  Whereas learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that both the award  of  interest and rate of interest are within the discretion  of  the Arbitrator.  This  Court cannot assume the role of an  Arbitrator  as  this Court is not an appellate Court and is not competent to substitute its  own view in place of the Arbitrator’s view as if it was dealing with an  appeal in  exercise  of power as Sections 16 and 30 of the Act do  not  give  such powers  to this Court. This Court is thus not competent nor it is just  and proper for it to correct or amend the award under Section 15 of the Act nor this provision is attracted in this case.\n<\/p>\n
50.  In the Upper Ganges Valley Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (supra),  a part  of  the  claim was disallowed by the Arbitrator  while  awarding  the compensation.  The  Supreme Court held that where the error  in  the  award relates  to  a matter which is distinct and separate from the rest  of  the award  and the part of which is invalid being severable from that which  is valid, the entire award need not be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
51.  The further question that arose was whether the award was to be remitted back to the Arbitrator for re-consideration about the amount which  was disallowed  by  the Arbitrator earlier. The respondent contended  that  the Court  could not modify the award to award this amount and that  the  award should  be remitted back. The Supreme Court held that there was  no  cogent reason as to why that Court should not adopt a course which far from  causing prejudice to the parties was clearly in the interest of justice and the Court  awarded the amount which was disallowed by the Arbitrator. Again  in Gujarat Water Supply & Sewage Board (supra), the Arbitrator has not awarded interest  for  the period from the date of the award till the date  of  the decree.  The Supreme Court held that interest should have been allowed  for this period on the principle, that the Court before which proceedings under Sections  15  to  17 are initiated, can grant interest  in  the  litigation pending  before  it and instead of remitting the case,  the  Court  awarded interest for this period. Though a Court could award interest only from the date  of  the decree till realisation as provided under Section 29  of  the Act,  however  the interest was awarded for pendente  lite  period  without remitting  the case back in the interest of justice as no  prejudice  would have been caused to the other party.\n<\/p>\n
52.  Recently,  I have considered the power of the Court to award  interest pendente  lite in the case of Corporation Bank Vs. M\/s. Rama  Industries  & Others,  (Suit No. 1536\/86, decided on 12.5.1998). After referring  to  the relevant  case  law, I have held that in commercial transactions,  for  the period after the institution of the suit till realisation, contractual rate ought to be the rule.\n<\/p>\n
53.  The learned Arbitrator has awarded interest @ 16.5% per annum from the date  of his award till payment or till decree. That part of the award  was not  challenged  by the respondent in this Court and it  appears  that  the award  made by the Arbitrator has since been satisfied. There would  be  no reason  for  the Arbitrator to award for pendente lite interest at  a  rate less  than  16.5% per annum. In the circumstances, no  prejudice  would  be caused to the respondent if pendente lite interest is awarded at this rate.\n<\/p>\n
54.  In the result, the objections are allowed, the error committed by  the Arbitrator  in  not awarding interest pendente lite is  corrected  and  the award is modified to the extent that the petitioner would also get pendente lite  interest  i.e., with effect from 2nd June, 1987 when  the  Arbitrator appointed  first  accepted  the reference and called upon  the  parties  to submit  their claims and counter claims till 28.8.1992 when the  Arbitrator made his award @ 16.5% per annum on the amount of Rs. 4,94,012\/- awarded by the learned Arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
55.  In  the result, I.A. 7002\/93 is allowed delay is condoned,  objections are allowed and the award dated 28.8.1992 is corrected and modified to  the extent  that the petitioner will get pendente lite interest for the  period 2.6.1987   to  28.8.1992  also  @  16.5%  per  annum  on  the   amount   of Rs.4,94,012\/-. The award as so modified and corrected is hereby made a rule of  the  Court. In the circumstances, parties are left to  bear  their  own costs.\n<\/p>\n
     IA No. 7002\/93 and Suit No. 3720\/92 are disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Shiv Singh vs N.P.C.C. Ltd. on 25 May, 1998 Equivalent citations: 73 (1998) DLT 582, 1998 (46) DRJ 189 Author: J Goel Bench: J Goel JUDGMENT J.B. Goel, J. 1. By this Order, a composite application, IA No.7002\/93 filed by the petitioner, seeking modification of the Award dated 28.8.1992 passed by Shri […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-224578","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShiv Singh vs N.P.C.C. Ltd. on 25 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shiv Singh vs N.P.C.C. Ltd. on 25 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-04T17:57:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shiv Singh vs N.P.C.C. Ltd. on 25 May, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-04T17:57:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998\"},\"wordCount\":4590,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998\",\"name\":\"Shiv Singh vs N.P.C.C. Ltd. on 25 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-04T17:57:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shiv Singh vs N.P.C.C. Ltd. on 25 May, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shiv Singh vs N.P.C.C. Ltd. on 25 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shiv Singh vs N.P.C.C. Ltd. on 25 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-04T17:57:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shiv Singh vs N.P.C.C. Ltd. on 25 May, 1998","datePublished":"1998-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-04T17:57:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998"},"wordCount":4590,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998","name":"Shiv Singh vs N.P.C.C. Ltd. on 25 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-04T17:57:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-singh-vs-n-p-c-c-ltd-on-25-may-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shiv Singh vs N.P.C.C. Ltd. on 25 May, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224578","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=224578"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224578\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224578"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224578"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224578"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}