Section 31(7) of The Arbitration Act IX / The Revival of Ray LXXXV


Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Harish N. Salve, is justified in relying on Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited v. Governor, State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Parag P. Tripathi submits, Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited would not be of any assistance.  

It will be apposite to refer to Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, (1976) 3 SCC 334.

Even where there appears to be some conflict, it would, we think, vanish when ratio decidendi of each case is correctly understood. It is a rule deducible from application of law to facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when same principles are applied in each case to similar facts.”

An agreement between parties on point of payment of interest, did not fall for consideration in Hyder Consulting (UK). In case of Hyder Consulting (UK), there was no agreement between parties with regard to payment of interest. Such is not the case here.

Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) did not have an occasion to consider import of the phrase “unless otherwise agreed by the parties” as employed by Legislature in Section 31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act. If contention raised on behalf of Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited is to be accepted, the phrase “unless otherwise agreed by the parties” would be rendered redundant and would become otiose.

Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, [Civil Appeal No. 3657 of 2022].  

Comments are closed.