Important Points
1.If an interim award is intended to finally determine the rights of the parties it will have the force of a complete award and will have effect even after the final award is delivered.
2. Once an award is made and signed by the arbitrator it becomes final notwith­standing the fact it is not pronounced and the arbitrator cannot redetermined the claims covered by the award.

Judgment

Rajendra Babu, J.-Leave granted.

2. In relation to the construction of High Level Bridge over river Ghaggar on Pehawa Road at Devigarh, an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondents. The disputes between them arose in respect of certain claims made by the appellant and the matter was referred to arbitration (respondent No. 3) pursuant to an order made by Sub-Judge (1st Class), Patiala. The appellant submitted his claim before the Arbitrator and sought for an interim award in respect of Item No. 1 with a claim for 18% compound interest from 1.2.1981 to 15.3.1992. The Arbitrator, by award made on November 26, 1992, awarded a sum of Rs. 7.45 lacs in respect of Item No. 1 with interest @ 18% compound yearly from 1.2.1981 to 15.3.1992. On January 28, 1994, the Arbitrator made another award inclusive of Item No. 1 and awarded a sum of Rs. 3.75 lacs and interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 1.2.1981 to 15.3.1992 on the amount and also in respect of other claims. The appellant made an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for making the awards dated November 26, 1992 and January 28, 1994 as the rule of the court. The trial Court made the award as the rule of the court holding that the interim award having covered Item No. 1 should not be taken note of in the award made on January 28, 1994. Thereby the trial Court took the view that interim award made on November 26, 1992 is liable to be made the rule of the court with regard to Item No. 1 and that Item No. 1 of the award made on January 28, 1994 will merge in the same deciding that aspect of the matter against the respondents and in favour of the appellant. The award dated January 28, 1994 was ordered to be made the rule of the court except for Item No. 1 for which interim award has already been granted.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the High Court which was allowed by holding that the trial Court fell in error in making the interim award the rule of the court which was superseded by the final award made on January 28, 1994.

4. In these appeals by special leave, the appellant contended that on the award being made by the Arbitrator insofar as Item No. 1 was concerned it became final but the High Court lost sight of the fact that it was not open to the Arbitrator to revise the Award made by him earlier as he had become functus officio. It is submitted that the High Court erred in holding that the award made on November 26, 1992 was not pronounced though it was made and signed by the Arbitrator and, therefore, was open to be corrected. Assailing this conclusion, it was contended that the Arbitrator has to make and sign the award and it is valid in law if he does so and merely because no notice has been given to the parties it cannot be held to be invalid and notice to the parties could be postponed. The requirement of making and signing the award simultaneously is sufficient to result in binding award. It was next contended that the view of the High Court that the Arbitrator himself superseded the award made on November 26, 1992 by treating it to be an interim award was erroneous and it was submitted that the interim award having been made and being final in character it was not open for modification or alteration except in terms as provided in Section 13(d) of the Act.

5. The trial Court adverted to the facts leading to the award being made on Item No. 1. The appellant claimed for interim award in respect of Item No. 1 for Rs. 10,05,422/- with compound interest @ 18% with effect from 1.2.1981 to 15.3.1992. The Arbitrator made an award on Item No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 7.45 lacs with interest @ 18% compound per annum from 1.2.1981 to 15.3.1992 after examining the oral and documentary evidence and after considering the arguments and counter arguments. It is necessary to notice the manner in which the Arbitra­tor dealt with this aspect of the matter in the award made on Janu