1. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the order in question made by the Sole Arbitrator dated 23.11.2005 is an executable award.

2. The order in question declares that the respondent is entitled to certain payments without a specific direction to the applicants to pay the sums to the respondent.

3. The respondent has instituted a claim of money against the appicant-Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "applicant".

4. The claim arises in respect of a contract for collection of octroi on the entry of goods within the limits of Kolhapur city in or about 1995-96 whereunder the respondent was appointed as an agent for such collection. There were some disputes between the parties and, therefore, the agreement with the respondent was terminated. The respondent then invoked clause 19 of the Agreement which provided for arbitration and one Dr.Nitin Kareer was appointed as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute. The Arbitrator eventually resigned without completing the arbitration.

5. The order in question was passed by the Sole Arbitrator i.e. the Commissioner of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, upon recording a statement made by the applicant that the respondent is entitled to receive certain amounts.

6. On the next date, the Arbitrator wrote a letter to the Corporation, stating that the final hearing on the interim order will take place later. Admittedly, no such hearing has taken place. The Arbitrator himself has resigned by a letter in April 2006.

7. The respondent levied execution of the order in the Court. The applicant objected to the execution on the ground that the order is not executable. The Court rejected the objection. Hence, this revision.

8. Mr.Dhakephalkar, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the order is merely declaratory of the respondent’s entitlement to receive the sums of money referred to therein and is not an award and is, therefore, not executable. He further submitted that the concession made by the applicant before the Sole Arbitrator is not valid and binding and could not have been opened by the Sole Arbitrator.

9. It is, therefore, necessary to construe the interim order, said to be an executable order by the respondent, and opposed as being one by the applicants. Though normally it would have been sufficient to construe the order itself, considering the controversy surrounding it, it is also necessary to see the attendant circumstances. A plain reading of the order reveals that the learned Arbitrator has referred to each of the issues and at the end of the issues has stated the amounts which can be said to be due to the respondent from the Corporation. Towards the end, the learned Arbitrator has observed as follows:-

"Thus the total amounts wrongfully collected from the Claimant by Kolhapur Municipal Corporation are:

------------------------------------------------

Sr.No. Particulars Amount in Rs.

------------------------------------------------

1. Excess payment 1,77,29,988.69

2. Current account holders 95,07,033.00

3. Motor memo account 1,15,249.00

4. Jaggery 11,08,782.00

5. Nakas not handed over 3,12,389.00

---------------

TOTAL 2,87,73,441.69

SAY 2,87,73,442/-

-----------------------------------------------"

Thereupon, the Arbitrator has observed that the applicants must pay interest equal to the PLR of the SBI for each year from 1996-97 on the amount that has been calculated in the earlier para. The exact rate of interest is not specified. Thereafter, the Arbitrator has observed as follows:-

"It needs to be clarified here that these amounts worked out through a process of reconciliation have been agreed