DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED versus DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 05-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION
(Civil Appeal No. 3657 of 2022)
MAY 05, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s. 31(7)(a) – Award
of sum under, if inclusive of interest pendente lite – Held: Legislative
intent s. 31(7)(a) is clear that the discretion with regard to grant of
interest would be available to the arbitral tribunal only when there
is no agreement to the contrary between the parties – Phrase “unless
otherwise agreed by the parties” clearly emphasizes that when the
parties have agreed with regard to any of the aspects covered u/
s.31(7)(a), the tribunal would cease to have any discretion with
regard to the aspects mentioned in the said provision – Only in the
absence of such an agreement, the tribunal would have a discretion
to exercise its powers u/s.31(7)(a) – It may grant or may not grant
interest – It may grant interest for the entire period or any part
thereof – 1996 Act itself emphasizes on party autonomy – On facts,
in view of the specific agreement between the parties, the interest
prior to and after the date of award would be governed by the
Concession Agreement – Arbitral tribunal rightly gave effect to the
specific agreement between the parties and granted interest at an
annulaize rate – Interest.
Interpretation of Statutes: Construction of – Held: Each and
every word and each and every phrase mentioned in the provision
will have to be given effect to – Statutes to be construed so that
every word has a place and everything is in its place.
Judgment/Order: Interpretation of – Held: Every judgment
must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed
to be proved since generality of the expressions which are found
cannot be considered to be intended to be exposition of the whole
law – They would have to be governed and qualified by the
particular facts of the case in which such expressions are found.
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 716
716
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
717
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It could be seen from clause (a) of sub-section
(7) of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
that the part which deals with the power of the Arbitral Tribunal
to award interest, would operate if it is not otherwise agreed by
the parties. If there is an agreement between the parties to the
contrary, the Arbitral Tribunal would lose its discretion to award
interest and will have to be guided by the agreement between
the parties. The provision is clear that the Arbitral Tribunal is
not bound to award interest. It has a discretion to award the
interest or not to award. It further has a discretion to award
interest at such rate as it deems reasonable. It further has a
discretion to award interest on the whole or any part of the money.
It is also not necessary for the Arbitral Tribunal to award interest
for the entire period between the date on which the cause of
action arose and the date on which the award is made. It can
grant interest for the entire period or any part thereof or no
interest at all. [Para 15][728-C-E]
1.2 In the instant case, the words “unless otherwise agreed
by the parties” would  assume significance. If clause (a) of sub-
section (7) of Section 31 of the 1996 Act is given a plain and
literal meaning, the legislative intent would be clear that the
discretion with regard to grant of interest would be available to
the Arbitral Tribunal only when there is no agreement to the
contrary between the parties. The phrase “unless otherwise
agreed by the parties” clearly emphasizes that when the parties
have agreed with regard to any of the aspects covered under
clause (a) of sub-section (7) of Section 31 of the 1996 Act, the
Arbitral Tribunal would cease to have any discretion with regard
to the aspects mentioned in the said provision. Only in the
absence of such an agreement, the Arbitral Tribunal would have
a discretion to exercise its powers under clause (a) of sub-section
(7) of Section 31 of the 1996 Act. The discretion is wide enough.
It may grant or may not grant interest. It may grant interest for
the entire period or any part thereof. It may also grant interest
on the whole or any part of the money. If the contention as raised
on behalf of the appellant-DAMEPL is to be accepted, the phrase
“unless otherwise agreed by the parties” would be rendered
DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED v.
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION
A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.