LITIGATING HAND

21. ........In the said decision, this Court held that in order to constitute an effective service, a copy of an award, where such party is the Ministry of a particular Department, is to be delivered to a person who has the knowledge and is the best person to understand and appreciate an award and more particularly, to take decision for its challenge......

25. On a careful analysis of the decisions discussed above, we are of the view that 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.

Vide the instant decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Hon’ble NCLAT interfering with the commercial wisdom of CoC while approving Resolution Plan submitted by other Resolution Applicant and denying any further extension to Respondent herein.

In the instant Civil appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no bar against several consumers filing joint complaint and a complaint in representative capacity. For attracting the provisions of Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint filed by one or more consumers should be on behalf of or for the benefit of numerous consumers having same interest. It does not mean that where there are only very few consumers having the same interest, they cannot even join together and file a single complaint, but should take recourse only to independent and separate complaints.

While allowing the appeal and directing the Respondents to grant disability pension to the appellant in accordance with the rules and regulations as are applicable to the Members of the Territorial Army with effect from 1st January 2012, the Hon’ble Court made following observation on the reliance placed on a document by the Respondents.