Case: JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. (JAL)THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR Vs. TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION INDIA LTD. (THDC )INDIA LTD.THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

under Clause G1.09 in this case being absolute, the decision in Harish Chandra [(1999) 1 SCC 63] will not assist the appellant in any manner. 20. It is also pertinent to note that the judgment in Sayeed Ahmed and Company distinguishing the restrictive wording in Harish Chandra has been consistently followed by this Court in number of cases thereafter. In this scenario, when we find that Harish Chandra case which is of the vintage of 1940 Act and is distinguished in Sayeed Ahmed and Company coupled with the fact that the ratio of Sayeed Ahmed and Company has been consistently followed, there is no reason to deviate from the construction to Clauses 50 and 51 of the GCC given by the arbitral tribunal in the first instance as well as the High Court. Above all, these clauses is pari materia with with Clauses 1.2.14 and 1.2.15 of GCC in THDC case which was a judgment between the same parties. 21. Insofar as argument based on the principle of ejusdem generis is concerned, the Division Bench has held that that is not applicable in the present case. We find that it is rightly so held. Ejusdem generis is the rule of construction. The High Court has negated this argument in the following manner: 18. The rule of ejusdem generis guides us that where two or more words or phrases which are susceptible of analogous meaning are cupled together, a noscitur a sociis,they are to be understood to mean in their cognate sense and take colour from each other but only if there is a distinct genus or a category. Where this is lacking i.e. unless there is a category, the rule cannot apply. As rightly held, the rule of ejusdem generis would be applied only if there is distinct genus or a category, which is lacking in the instant case. This rule is applicable when particular words pertaining to a clause, category or genus are followed by general words. In such a situation, the general words are construed as limited to things of same kind as those specified. In that sense, this rule reflects an attempt to reconcile incompatibility between the specific and general words in view of the other rules of interpretation that all words in a statute are given effect if possible, that a statute is to be construed as a whole and that no words in a statute were presumed to be superfluous. (See Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad (1999) 6 SCC 275 ). In fact, construing the similar clause, this Court in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Globe Hi- Fabs Limited (2015) 5 SCC 718 has held that rule of ejusdem generis is not applicable inasmuch as: 12. The rule of ejusdem generis has to be applied with care and caution. It is not an inviolable rule of law, but it is only permissible inference in the absence of an indication to the contrary, and where context and the object and mischief of the enactment do not require restricted meaning to be attached to words of general import, it becomes the duty of the courts to give those words their plain and ordinary meaning. As stated by Lord Scarman: If the legislative purpose of a statute is such that a statutory series should be read ejusdem generis, so be it, the rule is helpful. But, if it is not, the rule is more likely to defeat than to fulfil the purpose of the statute. The rule like many other rules of statutory interpretation, is a useful servant but a bad master. So a narrow construction on the basis of ejusdem generis rule may have to give way to a broader construction to give effect to the intention of Parliament by adopting a purposive construction. 15. A word of caution is here necessary. The fact that the ejusdem generis rule is not applicable does not necessarily mean that the prima facie wide meaning of the word other or similar general words cannot be restricted if the language or the context and the policy of the Act demand a restricted construction. In the expression defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature as they occur in Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act the generality of the words other cause is cut down expressly by the words of a like nature, though the rule of ejusdem generis is strictly not applicable as mention of a single species defect of jurisdiction does not constitute a genus. Another example that may here be mentioned is Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act which empowers any police officer authorised in this behalf or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government to detain and seize vehicles used without certification of registration or permit. The words other person in this section cannot be construed by the rule of ejusdem generis for mention of single species, namely, police officer does not constitute a genus but having regard to the importance of the power to detain and seize vehicles it is proper to infer that the words other person were restricted to the category of government officers. In the same category falls the case interpreting the words before filing a written statement or taking any other steps in the proceedings as they occur in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In the context in which the expression any other steps finds place it has been rightly construed to mean a step clearly and unambiguously manifesting an intention to waive the benefit of arbitration agreement, although the rule of ejusdem generis has no application for mention of a single species viz. written statement does not constitute a genus. 16. In the present case we noticed that the clause barring interest is very widely worded. It uses the words any amount due to the contractor by the employer. In our opinion, these words cannot be read as ejusdem generis along with the earlier words earnest money or security deposit.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]16. In this whole conspectus and keeping in mind, in particular, that present case is regulated by 1996 Act, we have to decide the issue at hand. At this stage itself, it may be mentioned that in case clauses 50 and 51 of GCC put a bar on the arbitral tribunal to award interest, the arbitral tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to do so. As pointed out above, right from the stage of arbitration proceedings till the High Court, these clauses are interpreted to hold that they put such a bar on the arbitral tribunal. Even the majority award of the arbitral tribunal recognised this. Notwithstanding the same, it awarded the interest by relying upon Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta case. The High Court, both Single Bench as well as Division Bench, rightly noted that the aforesaid judgment was under the 1940 Act and the legal position in this behalf have taken a paradigm shift which position is clarified in Sayeed Ahmed and Company case. This rationale given by the High Court is in tune with the legal position which stands crystallised by catena of judgments as noted above17. Another reason given by the High Court is equally convincing. The Clauses 50 and 51 of GCC are pari materia with Clauses 1.2.14 and 1.2.15 of GCC in THDC case. Those clauses have been interpreted by holding that no interest is payable on claim for delayed payment due to the contractor. Same construction adopted in respect of these clauses, which, in fact, is a case between the same parties, is without any blemish18. In this backdrop, the only argument of the appellant that remains to be considered is as to whether such a construction is contrary to the judgment in Harish Chandra case20. It is also pertinent to note that the judgment in Sayeed Ahmed and Company distinguishing the restrictive wording in Harish Chandra has been consistently followed by this Court in number of cases thereafter. In this scenario, when we find that Harish Chandra case which is of the vintage of 1940 Act and is distinguished in Sayeed Ahmed and Company coupled with the fact that the ratio of Sayeed Ahmed and Company has been consistently followed, there is no reason to deviate from the construction to Clauses 50 and 51 of the GCC given by the arbitral tribunal in the first instance as well as the High Court. Above all, these clauses is pari materia with with Clauses 1.2.14 and 1.2.15 of GCC in THDC case which was a judgment between the same parties.