LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Morgan Securities And Credits Pvt. Ltd. vs Videocon Industries Ltd.

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 898Decided 1 Sept 2022
Civil Appeal No.5437 of 2022
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud · A.S. Bopanna · Hima Kohli

Background

Videocon Industries had availed bill-discounting facilities from Morgan Securities in 2003 and defaulted on repaying about Rs.5 crore. An arbitrator ruled in Morgan's favour in 2013, awarding the principal amount plus pre-award interest, and post-award interest of 18% per annum, but only on the principal sum, not on the combined principal-plus-pre-award-interest figure. Morgan challenged this before the Delhi High Court (both a Single Judge and a Division Bench), arguing that post-award interest should have been calculated on the larger combined amount, but lost at both stages, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The core legal question was whether Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration Act, which lets an arbitral award "otherwise direct" a different interest arrangement, permits an arbitrator to award post-award interest only on the principal, or forces it onto the full combined sum. After analysing conflicting earlier Supreme Court decisions (State of Haryana v. S.L. Arora and the later three-judge decision in Hyder Consulting), the Court held that the phrase "unless the award otherwise directs" only qualifies the rate of interest, not the discretion over which portion of money it applies to; the arbitrator retains full discretion to award post-award interest, including on only part of the sum, provided that discretion is exercised reasonably and in good faith. Since the arbitrator had validly exercised this discretion when granting 18% interest on the principal alone, the Court found no error and dismissed the appeal.

Lesson Learnt

An arbitrator has broad discretion in deciding both the rate of interest awarded after an arbitration award and exactly which portion of the awarded money that interest applies to. Courts will not second-guess this discretion so long as it was exercised reasonably, so parties should raise their arguments about interest calculation clearly before the arbitrator, not just at the appeal stage.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Arbitration & Commercial Law

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Modern Asset v. KNK Constructions Private Limited

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause survives termination of the underlying contract (the "doctrine of separability") and that, at the Section 11 reference stage, courts only check for the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement: deeper questions about the effect of the resolution plan are for the arbitrator. It confirmed that while the IBC's "clean slate" principle extinguishes creditors' claims against the insolvent company once a resolution plan is approved, it does not extinguish the claims the company itself (through its SRA) may have against its own debtors, since the Resolution Professional had not raised a counter-claim on KNK's behalf during the insolvency process. However, noting the inequity of letting KNK recover fresh dues on the same contract while Modern Asset's own claim had been wiped out to 0.72 %, and following its own recent precedent in Ujaas Energy, the Court modified the High Court's order: Modern Asset may raise its extinguished claim in the arbitration solely as a set-off against any amount it is found to owe KNK, but cannot use it to claim any fresh recovery.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

S And P Infrastructure Developers (Pvt) Ltd vs. National Highways Authority of India

The Court held that the Joint Registrar's order overlooked an earlier ruling of this Court (M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India) establishing that an instrument must be stamped at or before execution, with any delay attracting penalty, not just a top-up payment. Since the Joint Registrar's order was not in line with the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Court set it aside. The decree holder's counsel then sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to refile once the stamp duty issue was properly resolved, which the Court granted.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Shubham Equipment Private Limited & Anr. v. Rothwell Water Company Limited & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the Licence Agreement, the JVA, and the MoU each covered different subject matter (technology licensing, the joint venture company, and logistics services respectively), so the JVA and MoU's own arbitration clauses, providing for arbitration in Mumbai under Indian law, governed the disputes arising under them, not the Licence Agreement's Korea clause. Both agreements also contained "entire agreement" clauses showing they were meant to stand independently. The Court restricted itself to the limited inquiry required at the reference stage under Section 11(6-A), whether an arbitration agreement prima facie exists, and left deeper questions, including whether a non-signatory subsidiary (RBIPL) could be bound, to the arbitrator. It allowed the petitions and appointed a former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court as the sole arbitrator.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S Redcliffe Lifetech Pvt Ltd vs. Connect and Heal Primary Care Pvt. Ltd.

Since the dispute was resolved, the petitioner's counsel sought leave to withdraw the petition rather than continue with it. The Court granted leave and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, along with any pending applications.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S Redcliffe Lifetech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lifespan Wellness Private Limited

The Court reiterated that at the stage of appointing an arbitrator under Section 11, it need only check whether an arbitration agreement exists on its face, not decide the merits of the dispute. Finding the arbitration clause undisputed, the Court appointed a named advocate as sole arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), leaving all other objections (including arbitrability and jurisdiction) to be decided by the arbitrator.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S. Keshari Multi Functional Complex Pvt Ltd vs. Rail Land Development Authority

Because the awarded amount was already deposited pursuant to the earlier stay order, the Court held nothing further survived for consideration in the present enforcement petition. It disposed of the petition, giving the decree holder liberty to refile later after paying the proper stamp duty (and any penalty) under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case