Important Provisions of Interest Act, 1978

Statement of Objects and Reasons.—The Law Commission of India in its sixty-third report had recommended the revision of the existing Interest Act, 1839. This Act is a very short one; besides a preamble, it contains only one section and a proviso. However, it is a statute of importance, since it prescribes the general law of interest which becomes applicable in the absence of any contractual or statutory provisions specifically dealing with the subject. According to the Commission, almost every phrase used in the Act has given rise problems of interpretation and judicial decisions have disclosed divergence of views in respect of the same. The Commission has revised the Act comprehensively so to as make its provisions more precise, specific unambiguous and juristically satisfactory. It is proposed to replace the existing Act by new Act based on the recommendations of the Law Commission.

2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) “court” includes a tribunal and an arbitrator;

Print Page

Whether arbitrator should grant interest pendente lite contrary to agreement between the parties?

Having regard to the above, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant seeking pendente lite interest on the award amount. {Para 18}

19. This takes us to the next question as to whether Clause 17 of the Contract is ultra vires in terms of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. According to Section 28, a contract is void to the extent it restricts absolutely a party from enforcing his rights by usual proceedings in ordinary courts or if it limits the time within which he may enforce his rights. Exception I to this section contains a rule that a contract by which two or more persons agree that any dispute which has arisen or which may arise between them in respect of any subject or class of subjects shall be referred to arbitration is not illegal. The question, therefore, is whether the contracts barring payment of interest extinguish the rights of the parties. Exception 1 to Section 28 reads as under :
“Exception 1: Saving of contract to refer to arbitration dispute that may arise. – This section shall not render illegal a contract, by which two or more persons agree that any dispute which may arise between them in respect of any subject or class of subjects shall be referred to arbitration, and that only the amount awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the dispute so referred.”

20. Exception I to Section 28 saves contracts where the right to move the Court for appropriate relief is restricted but where the parties have agreed to resolve their dispute through arbitration. Thus, a lawful agreement to refer the matter to arbitration can be made a condition precedent before going to courts and it does not violate Section 28. No cause of action then accrues until the Arbitrator has made the award and the only amount awarded in such arbitration is recoverable in respect of the dispute so referred. Section 31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act which allows parties to waive any claim to interest including pendente lite and the power of the Arbitrator to grant interest is subject to the agreement of the parties.

21. It is pertinent to note that interest payments are governed in general by the Interest Act, 1978 in addition to the specific statutes that govern an impugned matter. Section 2 (a) of the Interest Act defines a “Court” which includes both a Tribunal and an Arbitrator. In turn, Section 3 allows a “Court” to grant interest at prevailing interest rates in various cases. The provisions of Section 3 (3) of the Interest Act, 1978 explicitly allows the parties to waive their claim to an interest by virtue of an agreement. Section 3(3)(a)(ii) states that the Interest Act will not apply to situations where the payment of interest is “barred by virtue of an express agreement”.

22. Thus, when there is an express statutory permission for the parties to contract out of receiving interest and they have done so without any vitiation of free consent, it is not open for the Arbitrator to grant pendent lite interest. We are of the considered opinion that Clause 17 of the contract is not ultra vires in terms of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

                      Supreme Court

JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI

GARG BUILDERS Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6216 OF 2021

4th October 2021

Author: S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

Citation: 2021 ALL SCR 2191

Print Page

General rule of appropriation towards a decretal amount

 From what has been stated in the said decision, the following principles emerge:

a) The general rule of appropriation towards a decretal amount was that such an amount was to be adjusted strictly in accordance with the directions contained in the decree and in the absence of such directions adjustments be made firstly towards payment of interest and cost and thereafter towards payment of the principal amount subject, of course, to any agreement between the parties.

b) The legislative intent in enacting sub-rules 4 and 5 is clear to the pointer that interest should cease to run on the deposit made by the judgment debtor and notice given or on the amount being tendered outside the Court in the manner provided in Order XXI Rule 1 sub-clause (b).

c) If the payment made by the judgment debtor falls short of the decreed amount, the decree holder will be entitled to apply the general rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount deposited towards the interest, then towards cost and finally towards the principal amount due under the decree.

d) Thereafter, no further interest would run on the sum appropriated towards the principal. In other words if a part of the principal amount has been paid along with interest due thereon as on the date of issuance of notice of deposit interest on that part of the principal sum will cease to run thereafter. e) In cases where there is a shortfall in deposit of the principal amount, the decree holder would be entitled to adjust interest and cost first and the balance towards the principal and beyond that the decree holder cannot seek to reopen the entire transaction and proceed to recalculate the interest on the whole of the principal amount and seek for re-appropriation.

Supreme Court of India

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs R.S.Avtar Singh & Co. on 5 October, 2012

Author: …..……….…………………………...J.

Bench: B.S. Chauhan, Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla

Print Page