Back to feed Read the full judgment
IndiaCivil
North Eastern Electric Power ... vs Astra Construction Private Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- Sep 22, 2026
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 1036
- Judges
- Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Alok Aradhe
AI breakdown
- A power company and a contractor are in dispute over interest on payments for a delayed project.
- The Supreme Court decided that the contract clause bars any claim for pre-reference interest.
- The court ruled that the clause clearly stops interest on delayed payments, affecting the award.
Outcome
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Taken from the judgment's conclusion. Check the full text for the exact order.
Parties
Applicant
North Eastern Electric Power ...
Respondent
Astra Construction Private Limited
Judgment text (excerpt)
North Eastern Electric Power ... vs Astra Construction Private Limited on 22 September, 2026
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
2026 INSC 1036 NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 24803 OF 2025)
North Eastern Electric Power
Corporation Limited (NEEPCO) … Appellant
Versus
Astra Construction Private Limited … Respondent
JUDGMENT
Alok Aradhe, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal calls in question the judgment dated 19.06.2025
rendered by the High Court1, whereby the appeal preferred by the
respondent under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (1996 Act) was allowed and the grant of pre-reference
interest by the Arbitral Tribunal, earlier disallowed by the
Commercial Court, was restored. The controversy, though narrow
in compass, bears materially upon public works contracts
generally, and turns upon the true meaning of Clause 54 of the
General Conditions of Contract (GCC) governing the parties'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2026.09.22
18:55:36 IST
Reason:
1
High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong
1
agreement, and upon whether the said clause corresponds, in
substance, to the clause construed by a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra and Co.2 or, instead,
to the clauses considered in the later line of authority commencing
with Sayeed Ahmed & Company v. State of U.P. & Ors.3.
FACTS
3. The facts, shorn of unnecessary detail, may be briefly noticed. On
12.06.1995, the appellant invited tenders …

Source: Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org). Indian court judgments are public records; the summary and translations are AI-generated.