Judicial Insight
Back to feed
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 …
Read the full judgmentpowered by IKanoon

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