Statutory post-award interest cannot be contracted out despite express contractual prohibitions against interest.

NTPC appointed Appellant No. 1 as a consultant for a thermal power project, and a contract was executed with the Respondent on 05.11.2014 for civil works.

During execution, the Respondent encountered hard rock and used tie bolts for RCC wall shuttering, claiming these as extra items under the CPWD Specifications and DSR-2013.

The Appellants disputed the classification of the rock as "hard" and the necessity of independent payment for tie bolts, further asserting that no prior written approval was obtained from the Engineer-in-Charge as required by Clause 10 of the GCC.

An Arbitral Tribunal awarded the Respondent claims for hard rock excavation (Claim 1) and tie bolts (Claim 2), along with statutory reimbursements and future interest.

A Single Judge upheld most of the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but set aside pre-award interest due to a contractual bar.

The Appellants preferred this intra-court appeal under Section 37.

Whether the Arbitral Tribunal’s classification of excavated material as "hard rock" instead of "ordinary rock" constituted patent illegality or a violation of the CPWD Specifications.

Whether the lack of prior written approval from the Engineer-in-Charge under Clause 10 of the GCC disentitled the Respondent from claiming payments for extra/additional works.

Whether the grant of post-award (future) interest is permissible despite an express contractual prohibition against interest "at any stage".

The Court applied the limited scope of appellate interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which prohibits reappraisal of evidence if the Tribunal’s view is plausible.

It interpreted Clause 11 of the GCC as a distinct mechanism from Clause 10 for contractor-initiated claims for extra items arising during "occurrence".

Regarding interest, the Court applied Section 31(7)(b) of the Act, distinguishing between pre-award interest (subject to party autonomy) and post-award interest (a statutory right that cannot be "contracted out"), as clarified in *R.P. Garg v. Telecom Department* [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2928] and *Morgan Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd.*

It also invoked the maxim *nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria* (no one can take advantage of their own wrong) regarding the Appellants' failure to respond to the Respondent's notices.

The Court observed that the Tribunal’s finding on "hard rock" was a factual determination based on contemporaneous Field Book entries signed by the Appellants’ site engineer and an independent geological report.

The Tribunal’s interpretation that Clause 2.1(b) of the CPWD Specifications was inapplicable because the rock could not be excavated manually was deemed a plausible view.

Regarding the lack of written approval, the Court held that Clause 11 operates independently of Clause 10; since the Respondent gave timely notice of the "occurrence" of extra work and the Appellants remained "supine" while accepting the benefits, they were estopped from denying payment.

On the issue of interest, the Court reasoned that while Clause 50 of the SCC barred pre-award interest, it could not override the statutory mandate for post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b), as the latter is not subject to party autonomy.

It held that the Arbitral Tribunal’s findings were pure questions of fact and plausible interpretations of the contract, which do not warrant interference under the narrow confines of Section 37.

The Court affirmed that the Respondent is entitled to the awarded amounts for hard rock excavation and tie bolts, as well as statutory post-award interest, notwithstanding the contractual bar.

No order as to costs was made.