interest award - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contracts, Upholds IRCTC’s Catering Policy

28Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contracts, Upholds IRCTC’s Catering Policy

The Supreme Court held that an arbitral award which contravenes binding government policy circulars—incorporated into the parties' contracts—is patently illegal and in conflict with the public policy of India under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. An arbitrator cannot rewrite contractual terms that reflect such policy. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from contracts for catering services on premium Indian Railways trains (Rajdhani, Shatabdi, Duronto). The Railway Board initially increased meal tariffs in 2013 but simultaneously introduced a cheaper "combo meal" to replace the second regular meal on long journeys. This combo meal was swiftly discontinued days later, and caterers were directed to serve a second regular meal instead, but were to be reimbu...

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...

Supreme Court Slams Differential Pay, Upholds Fair Value for Fruit Trees on Acquired Land

The Supreme Court ruled that similarly situated landowners must receive equal compensation in land acquisition cases. It held that a prior judicial decision awarding a higher multiplier for identical orange trees constituted a "special circumstance," justifying the restoration of a 15x multiplier over a reduced 10x multiplier to prevent discriminatory treatment. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the appellants, landowners from village Khanapur in Akola district, whose land was acquired by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation pursuant to a notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in August 1995. Possession was taken in April 1996. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the landowners sought a reference to a civil court. In its 2011 award, the reference court gra...