Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF ORISSA versus SUDHAKAR DAS (DEAD) BY LRS.

Decided
23 February 2000
Judges listed
A.S. ANAND, S. RAJENDRA BABU, R.C. LAHOTI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2000] 1 S.C.R. 1136 · 2000 INSC 94
Also cited as
  • (2000) 3 SCC 27 (4 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2000 SC 1294 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This appeal by special leave arises out of arbitration proceedings. The High Court of Orissa dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant against the order of Subordinate Judge, Bhubancshwar making an award madt: by the Arbitrator a rule of th!! Court. The three main issues with which we are concerned in this appeal are :

p. 1137, margin A

al. Whether the Arbitrator could have granted an award for escalation in favour of the contractor?

p. 1137, margin B

2

Whether the Arbitrator could have awarded pendente lite interest in favour of the contractor? and

p. 1137, margin C

3

Whether the Arbitrator could have granted interest for the pn:-reference period'?" It is not disputed that the arbitration agreement contained no escalation clause. In the absence of any escalation clause, an Arbitrator cannot assume any jurisdiction to award any amount towards escalation. That part of the Award which grants escalation charges is clearly not sustainable and suffers from a patent error. The decree, insofar as the award of escalation charges is concerned, cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is conceded by Ms. Mana Chakraborty, learned counsel for the State that the issue relating to the power of the Arbitrator to grant interest pendente lite where the agreement between the parties, as in the present case, did not prohibit grant of interest and the dispute referred to the Arbitrator included the claim of interest, is no longer res-integra and stands settled in favour of the claimant and against the State in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & Others v. G. C. Roy, (1992] 1 SCC 508, overruling the view to the contrary as expressed in Executive Engineer (Inigation) Balimela & Others v.Abhaduta lena & Others, [1998)1 SCC 418. The decree to the extent, it awards pendente lite interest in favour of the respondents, therefore, is sustained and the challenge to it fails. So far as the award of interest for pre-ccference period i~ concerned, it appears appropriate to us, keeping in view the fact that the proceedings in this case have remained pending for almost one and a half decade and the arbitration started as t:arly as in 1975, to direct that tht: respondent shall ex~cute the decree relating to the award of pre-reference intert:st only on furnishing a bank guarant<.:e to thc cxtent of that amount og~tb.er with an undertaking that in tbe event the Constitution Bench, to which this issue has been n.:ferred to in Executive Ettgineer, Dftankanal \linur Irrigation Division, Olissa v. N.C. Budltiruj (Dead) by L.Rs. (Civil Appeal !'lo. 3586 of l YM), decides against the decrc.:chulder-respoudents, the State shall be ntit:cd to t:ncash tbt: bank guarantet!.. The rc:.pondt:nts shall keep the bank guarantee aliv<.: during the pendency of the matter before the Constitution Bench and on furnishing the bank guarantee and tbt: undertaking the respondents can execute the decree in that behalf. Thus, the appeal is dispo!.t:d of in above terms. The impugned judgmt:nt and dt:crl..t: shall stand modified accordingly. No costs. T.NA. Appeal disposed of.

pp. 1137–1138, margin C