RAVINDRA & ASSOCIATES versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 21-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

_, 
[2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 335 
I 
RAVINDRA & ASSOCIATES 
A 
) 
" 
v . 
... 
UNION OF INDIA 
(Civil Appeal No. 2726 of 2004) 
OCTOBER 21, 2009 
B 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
-> 
Arbitration: 
c 
Award by arbitrator- Interference with, by court - Scope 
I 
of - Construction contract - Completed by contractor within 
stipulated time - As regards payments, dispute arose between 
parties and contractor filing a claim before arbitrator -
-~ 
Arbitrator awarding a certain amount to contractor with simple 
interest @ 18% for pre-reference period, pendent elite and D 
from date of award till date of decree/payment - Award made 
rule of the court by Principal Sub-Judge - Interest on amount 
awarded reduced to 12% - High Court allowing appeal of 
employer - HELD: High Court has wrongly interfered with the E 
findings of fact recorded by arbitrator - Arbitrator made the 
award after considering respective claims of parties -
Judgement of High Court set aside - Contractor would be 
• + 
entitled to interest@ 12% as awarded by Principal Sub-
Judge. 
F 
State of Rajasthan vs. Puri Construction Co; J.:td. (1994) 
6 SCC 485; Trustees of Port of Madras vs. Engineering 
Construction Corporation Ltd. (1995) 5 SCC 531; EOG India 
Ltd. vs. Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. (2007) 9 SCC 503 and G. Ram 
Chandra Reddy & Company vs. Union of India & Anr. (2009) G 
"' 
6 sec 414, relied on. 
_,t 
Ramnath International Construction (P) Ltd. vs. Union of 
India (2007) 2 SCC 453, distinguished. 
335 
H 
A 
B 
336 
SUPREME"COURT REPORTS [2009r1s. (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
-: ~ Case Law Reference: 
(1994) s sec 48~ 
(1995) 5 sec 531 ·: · 
relied on 
.'' 
relied on· 
(2007) 9 SCC 503 . · - relied orL 
Para 5 
Para 5 
Para 5 
(2009).'61SCC·:414 Ct'·/ relied~on·~:-.: . ."1 .. ::.1"Para 5 
i~ t 
:· .. _;f)i. 'ft D 
(2007) 2 SCC 453 
distinguished 
Para 7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
C 
2726. of 2004. 
;<1(/""'G 
--
_ <__,,_,,.,,·,'U 
't~ ~. '.~;· 
....,,.~ .• •\"~L , .... '.:"'" _...,.J._ 
-_ .. _ 
.~~. tj. 
,·:'~'From the uudgmerit &10rder dated-15:1.2003· of the High 
Court·of Kerala~at~Ernakulam iffMisc,\Firsf.Appea1 No. 53.:of 
1998"·(8.')·.·, -
.... ~-.. ·''.·-','.' f'.'· 
I 
~' 
., ..• 
~ 
h.,. - - ' 
. 
v 
! • 
. '· 
._ ·-
; . 
• ' -~ 
D 
:..· ;~<-.:· .; 
"'Y~~ :..'"~r ::. J---~ 
, 
"' 
:~:.; 
I''"":.~ ... ~ 
:._, 1 ·v~'J .. ,;:f::.i 
.... ~-,..: 
· ... :. Sudhir 9ha.ridr~ • .:_Mu~esh Jai_n,J~tpal Saha ~nd ~sha Jain 
~ -
MadanJor the ~ppell~nt;_;, "'':<., 
.. ~~ .... •\' .. r-
,'. • 
-~. : 
~·. 
)~":"':...; f,.-
i~ .'.j"\ .,...i.+,.., 
-
'i' •• ~ 
-~ 
. 
' 
r: 
'"'> '•· -'.""'"-.-· 
... 
~ 
-.. -~ .... - • ,, 
. . ·.Mohan' Jain: AS~~~Dihesh Tha~tir, Indra ·sawhney; Rohini 
Muktferjee,vSubasll Kaushik,' Rekha F>anciey:~n'Ci ·s-Jshrria · suri 
""' 
l 
't'i 
' 
. '!' .. -
·~ 
"._., 
., 
, 
. 
~" 
' 
,, 
... 
• 
'· 
"';.,.._ 
'~ •••. - •. 
E 
to~ t~~.R,es~o~~e.~!:' · 1: 
:; ,_ .-· •• ~, ··, ~:. ·~ ·:~'.} •• 
; 
, 
.. ·, 
r.~fhecfollowifl'gl:Order' 'Of the Court was ·delivered; 
r~ 
~r·.: 
'\',,..._;.>·· 
.~~--
-
, .. _ 
... ·,\ 
'...:~ ... 
,~,~~ 
_~_~'--
~ .·\;\'"•:::-:""'·';;,.,. 
1 ... 
}"'' 
F 
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
··~~~;1·r-~ 
c_:~ .
.... _.J •. 1.>1~\~· ....... :.:.. ... 
~ 
.·~ 
... 
'·~, .~~\; h~~-
:~ 
'":. .• ~ -~ 
, .2 .. :Th1s appeal by special leave has been'filed, against the 
; 
• ' 
• 
• • 
;. ' 
':'""". 
~... 
_, 
-
• ~4 ·• 
•• 
• 
• v 
• 
. -. . 
. ".:;:t-:-
¥. \.., 
' 
~ 
~ 
•-
• 
J , ~ r 
r-1 
judgment. and; order, dated J 1.5.1.2003 .of the .Higli. Court of 
.,.. 
• 
-
-..~' 
· 
1 
+ 
#·Y 
~_,..-..-
.,/!' 
\.• 
\ """"'"" 1 
! 
, • • .... ,.. 
< •::':' .I ,J 
, __ . 
~ • · . ..,. ~ l 
I 
, 
• 
,,,. 
Kerala at Ernakulam~whereby the High .Court has allowed the 
• ,j. 
....... 
...._;j" 
~-
·~~ -· ~_, .:.. 
\, ·"'· .... f 
.... ... 
~~\<' 
0.\ 
• •. ~~ 
·\l~~., --
('.. 
! 
' 
G 
~RP 
.. ~~I ~i.l~d !>Y~!~~ re~P.qf'!d~nt he!e}p~ ~~~!.n~t ~~,~.,?rd~r,.~dC!_t~d. 
9.10.1996 of the Principal Sub Judge, ~ochL:.o,-. .·•i·· .Y t. cl 
H 
, . r·c,3.iLf appe~.~ that.t~~"~ppe~tant.YJ.a~ fl~a~d-~d a,con~r,act for 
construction of married accommodation for petty: officers of the 
1.1- • ..,•., _ _.,~jl~lt,'°'·~~--
l..,-i::.._~ 
., .A·::J.,. l 
~'.,V ... 
Navy at Rameswaram, Koclii. The value of the worl< awarded 
I 
i 
b
L .... 
RAVINDRA & ASSOCIATES v. UNION OF INDIA 
337 
f 
was Rs. 5,44,47,087/-. The work which commenced on 
A 
24.12.1990 had to be completed by 23.6.1993 and admittedly 
it was complet

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