Arbitration Monthly Digest: September 2025

Supreme Court Arbitration | Delivery Of Award To Govt Official Not Connected With Case Doesn't Amount To Valid Service On State : Supreme Court Cause Title: M/S. MOTILAL AGARWALA Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 867 The Supreme Court has clarified that when the government or one of its departments is a party to arbitration, delivery of an arbitral award to an official who is not connected with or aware of the proceedings cannot be treated as valid service for commencing the limitation period to challenge the award. Citing its ruling of Union of India vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors (2005), the Court said that the delivery of the copy of the arbitral award should be made to the “party to the proceedings”, and if government is part to the proceedings than the delivery should be made to an individual who has the knowledge and is the best person to understand and appreciate an award and more particularly, to take decision for its challenge. “This Court has held that the award should be received in the context of huge organisations by the person who has knowledge of the proceedings and who would be the best person to understand and appreciate the arbitral award as also to take a decision in the matter of moving appropriate applications.”, the court said. A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan heard the case where the dispute arose after an arbitral award was passed on 12 November 2013 in favor of the Appellant. A signed photocopy of the award was collected by an Assistant Engineer of the Respondent's State Irrigation Department. Based on this, the award-holder argued that the State was bound to file its challenge within 90 days, i.e., by 12 February 2014. S. 37(1)(a) Arbitration Act | Clause Restricting Interest On Delayed Payments By Itself Won't Bar Pendente Lite Interest : Supreme Court Cause Title: OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS M/S G & T BECKFIELD DRILLING SERVICES PVT. LTD. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 868 The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Sep.2) observed that an Arbitral Tribunal can grant pendente lite interest unless expressly or impliedly barred in the contract. It added that a contractual clause barring interest on delayed payments does not prevent an arbitral tribunal from awarding pendente lite interest, i.e., the interest for the period during which the arbitration is pending. “…arbitral tribunal can be denuded of its power to award pendente lite interest only if the agreement/ contract between the parties is so worded that the award of pendente lite interest is either explicitly or by necessary implication (such as in the case of Sayeed & Co. (supra) and THDC First (supra)) barred. A clause merely barring award of interest on delayed payment by itself will not be readily inferred as a bar to award pendente-lite interest by the arbitral tribunal.”, the court observed. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra dismissed the ONGC's appeal, affirming the Gauhati High Court's decision, which justified the grant of pendente lite interest as there was no clause barring the award of pendente lite interest. Arbitration | Execution Of Award Cannot Be Stalled Merely Due To Pendency Of Section 37 Appeal : Supreme Court Cause Title: CHAKARDHARI SUREKA VERSUS PREM LATA SUREKA THROUGH SPA & ORS. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 919 The Supreme Court held that the execution of an arbitral award cannot be stalled merely on the ground that an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is pending. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the case where the appellant (award-holder/decree-holder) sought execution of the arbitral award. The respondents (judgment-debtors) argued that since a Section 37 appeal was pending against the dismissal of their Section 34 objections, the execution should be deferred. “In our view, the question of executability of the award can be gone into by the Execution Court in accordance with law while addressing objections as and when raised. However, it would not be proper for the Execution Court to defer consideration of the execution application and the objections thereto only because an appeal is pending under Section 37 when there is no interim order operating against the award against which objection under Section 34 of the Act stands rejected.”, the court observed. S. 31(7)(b) Arbitration Act | Claim For Additional Post-Award Interest Barred When Award Fixes Rate Until Payment : Supreme Court Cause Title: HLV LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HOTEL LEELAVENTURE PVT. LTD.) VERSUS PBSAMP PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 944 The Supreme Court on Wednesday (Sep. 24) held that if an arbitral award provides a composite interest rate covering the entire period from the cause of action to payment, the award holder cannot claim additional compound...

Arbitration Monthly Digest: September 2025

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags