# MIS B.L. GUPTA CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD v. BHARAT COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD

- **Citation:** [2003] Supp. 5 S.C.R. 269
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2003-11-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 2902-2903 of 2002
- **Bench:** V.N. Khare, S.B. Sinha, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mis-b-l-gupta-construction-p-ltd-v-bharat-cooperative-group-housing-society-ltd-19404
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

B
Arbitration :
Interest-Pre-reference interest-Work contract-Dispute between parties
referred to arbitrator-Contractor claiming pre-reference interest as also fature C
interest@24% per annum-Arbitrator allowing 18% pre-reference, pendente
lite and post award interest-Division Bench of High Court holding contractor
not entitled to interest prior to date of award and reducing interest to 10%
from date of award till date of decree-Held, in view of the agreement between
the parties, contractor entitled to pre-reference interest @12% per annum- D
As regards interest pendente lite, arbitrator having exercised his jurisdiction
uls 34 CPC, High Court could not have interfered with the discretionary order
where/or no reason was assigned-However, on facts, contractor would be
paid pre-reference and pendente lite interest @ 10% per annum-Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908-s. 34.
Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa and
Ors. v. N.C. Budharaj and Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 721, relied on.

## Text

MIS B.L. GUPTA CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD.
A
v.
BHARAT COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
NOVEMBER 5, 2003
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]
B
Arbitration :
Interest-Pre-reference interest-Work contract-Dispute between parties
referred to arbitrator-Contractor claiming pre-reference interest as also fature C
interest@24% per annum-Arbitrator allowing 18% pre-reference, pendente
lite and post award interest-Division Bench of High Court holding contractor
not entitled to interest prior to date of award and reducing interest to 10%
from date of award till date of decree-Held, in view of the agreement between
the parties, contractor entitled to pre-reference interest @12% per annum- D
As regards interest pendente lite, arbitrator having exercised his jurisdiction
uls 34 CPC, High Court could not have interfered with the discretionary order
where/or no reason was assigned-However, on facts, contractor would be
paid pre-reference and pendente lite interest @ 10% per annum-Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908-s. 34.
Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa and
Ors. v. N.C. Budharaj and Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 721, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2902-2903
of 2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.2001 Corrected on 3.9.2001 of
the Delhi High Court in F.A.O. (OS) No. 78 of 1996.
O.P. Khadaria, Deepak Khadaria for Mis. Mitter & Mitter Co. for the
Appellant.
Ram K. Watel, Ms. Praveena Gautam for Pramod B. Agarwala for the
Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered by
269
E
F
G
H
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
These appeals arise out of a judgment dated 1st August, 2001, passed
by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in FAO (OS) No. 78of1996,
whereby and whereunder the pre-reference interest and pendente lite interest
has been denied and the post award interest was reduced from 18% to I 0%
per annum.
B
The appellant' tender has been accepted by the respondent and an
agreement was executed between the parties for raising 308 dwelling units.
The agreement provided for resolution of dispute by arbitration. It is not
disputed that the appellant completed the work. However, certain disputes
arose. As per the arbitration agreement, the matter was referred to the sole
C Arbitrator, who entered into the reference. Before the Arbitrator, the appellant
herein claimed pre-interest reference as also future interest at the rate of 24%
per annum. On 18th December, 1992, the Arbitrator gave an Award for a
sum of Rs. 24,64,424 against the appellant's claim of Rs. 46,92,461. The
Arbitrator allowed the claim of interest raised by the appellant herein and
directed that int~rest @ 18% per annum should be paid on the awarded
D amount in respect of pre-reference, pendants lite and post A ward. The appellant
filed the said Award for being made Rule of the Court. Before the learned
Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, the respondent filed an objection.
However, the said objection was rejected and the learned Single Judge of the
High Court by judgment dated 5th February, 1996 made the Award as Rule
E of the Court and granted the decree in terms of the Award. It also further
directed that future interest by payable at 18% per annum till payment is
made. The Division Bench, although upheld the other part of the Award,
inter alia, directed that the appellant would not be entitled to interest prior
to the date of the Award. As regards the interest granted from the date of the
Award till the date of decree @ 18% per annum was considered to be excessive
F and the same was reduced to 100/o. It was directed as follows:
"Consequently, decree shall stand modified to the extent that the
claim of respondent to interest prior to 18th December, 1992 stands
rejected. Respondents shall be entitled to future interest @100/o per
annum on the amount of award under claim no. I from 18th December,
G
1992 till the date of decree and from the date of decree till date of
payment on the amount payable by the society to the respondent in
terms of the award.
H
It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant is in
appeal before us.
B.L GUPTA CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD."· BHARA TCOOPERATIVEGROUPHOUSING SOCIETY LTD. · 2 71
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the view taken A
by the High Court in deleting the pre-reference interest and pendent lite is
contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Executive Engineer,
Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa and Ors. v. N.C. Budharaj
(Deceased) by Lrs. and Ors., reported in [200 I] 2 SCC 721. In view of the
decision of the Constitution Bench in N.C. Budharaj's case (supra), the said B
argument has to be accepted.
The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, however, is
that as the appellant has not made any demand for grant of inter~st, no
interest was payable in terms of Interest Act, 1978. It was further urged that
grant of pendete lite interest being discretionary in terms of Section 34 of the C
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court cannot be said to have
committed any error in refusing to exercise the discretion. The submission of
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent cannot be accepted for more
than one reason. Firstly, no such case was made out before the Arbitrator or
before the High Court and secondly, the parties entered into an agreement in
terms whereof it was agreed that as regards the delayed payment, the interest D
@ I% per month will be paid on the bills that are paid after three months,
which comes to 12% per annum. The appellant, therefore, was entitled to
pre-reference interest@ 12% per annum. Furthermore, the Arbitrator exercised
his jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure by grant of
pendente lite interest @ 18% per annum. The High Court could not have E
interfered with the said discretionary order; wherefor no reason was assigned.
However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are
of the opinion. that the interest of justice shall be subserved if the respondent
is directed to pay to the appellant the pre-reference and pendente lite interest
@ 10% per annum in tune with the other part of the judgment of the High
Court.
F
The appeals are allowed in-part to the extent mentioned hereinabove.
There shall be no order as to costs.
R.P.
Appeals allowed.