Contractual Interpretation - The Legal Chamber

No Interest on Delayed Payment Clause: Supreme Court Explains Its Limits

9Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

No Interest on Delayed Payment Clause: Supreme Court Explains Its Limits

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that a contractual clause merely barring interest on delayed or disputed payments does not, by itself, expressly or by necessary implication prohibit an arbitral tribunal from awarding pendente lite interest. The power to award such interest under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is only denuded if the agreement contains a clear and comprehensive bar. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from an arbitral award dated 21.11.2004, which directed the appellant, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC), to pay a total sum of USD 6,56,272.34 to the respondent, M/s G & T Beckfield Drilling Services Pvt. Ltd., for outstanding invoices and other claims. The arbitral tribunal rejected ONGC's preliminary objection to the ma...

What Qualifies as ‘Goods’? Supreme Court Explains Why a Power Plant Isn’t Eligible for Export Benefits

The Supreme Court held that a press release announcing a policy change does not constitute a "Change in Law" under a Power Purchase Agreement, as only duly promulgated notifications have legal force. It further ruled that deemed export benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy are inapplicable to immovable, integrated power plants, as the policy is designed for movable "goods" and requires strict adherence to defined supply and procurement conditions. Facts Of The Case: The case involved appeals by Nabha Power Limited and Talwandi Sabo Power Limited against the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). The dispute arose from a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) executed following a tariff-based competitive bidding process. The appellants claimed that post-bid notifications from the...

No Arbitration Without Clear Agreement: When Does a Dispute Clause Become Binding? Supreme Court’s Latest Verdict Explained

The Supreme Court held that Clause 13 of the contract, which stated disputes "may be sought through arbitration," did not constitute a binding arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The use of "may" indicated no mandatory intent to arbitrate, requiring further mutual consent. The Court emphasized that an arbitration agreement must reflect a clear, unequivocal commitment to resolve disputes through arbitration, excluding domestic courts. Mere enabling language without obligation is insufficient. The High Court’s dismissal of the arbitration application was upheld. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose between BGM & M-RPL-JMCT (JV) (Appellant) and Eastern Coalfields Limited (Respondent) over a contract for transportation/handling of goods. T...