The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards, the arbitrator's discretion in interpreting the contract, and the arbitrator's power to award interest for the entire period, past, present, and future, in the absence of any stipulation in the contract barring him from doing so.

( 1 ) BY means of this Appeal the Appellant M/s. Em and Em Associates (hereinafter referred to as the contractor ), has assailed the impugned judgment dated 26. 5. 1989 of the Learned Single Judge, in respect of claims 3 and 4 and 16 to 18. We shall consider Claims 3 and 4 together as has been done in the Statement of claims, in the arbitral Award, and in the judgment of the Learned Single Judge. These Claims are - "that the rates quoted by the Claimants in their tender were based on the quantities shown in the Schedule to the tender documents but when the work was actually carried out it was found by the Claimants that the quantity shown in the schedule to tender documents was wrong and as a result of the wrong quantities mentioned in respect of box-Liners and Shutters in the schedule to the tender documents by the Respondent, the claimants suffered a loss of Rs. 1,06,725. 51 i. e. Rs. 30,483. 66 in respect of box Liners and Rs. 76,241. 85 in respect of Shutters. The respondent is liable to pay the said amount of rs. 1,06,725. 51 to the Claimants along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum which comes to Rs. 16,008. 75 from 11. 10. 82 till the filing of this statement of claim. " Originally, the Award read as in the first column, and after its remission reads as in the second column. These have been juxtaposed for facility of comparison, and for a complete understanding of the reasons which prevailed upon the Arbitrator to make his award in respect of these two claims:-After considering the above reasons the Learned single Judge was of the following opinion:

"the next objection is that the reasons given in respect of claims 3 and 4 are in total contravention of the provisions of the agreement signed between the parties. The finding now recorded that quantum of items mentioned in schedule of quantities of the contract is wrong , is without substance or reason. The so called reason given in support has no bearing on the facts of the case and are not reasons at all in any reasonable perspective. The findings of the Arbitrator that the petitioner had tendered for finished product is not based on any evidence and runs counter to the contract. The rates quoted by the petitioner in the tender were not only for the quantities mentioned in the Schedule of quantities, but also for the possible deviation upto the extent of 50% as per clause (ii) to memorandum on page 17 of the agreement between the parties. Clause 1. 1 of the tender stipulated that cup-boards had to be manufactured as per actual niche sizes existing at the site as per enclosed drawings. The subsequent manufacture of the cup-boards was also done as per the actual niche sizes and the work measured accordingly for payment. It was provided in the contract that the only permissible mode for payment is the actual measurement of the work executed at the site. It was so observed by this court in its order dated 11. 4. 1986 that when the actual measurement was the only criteria for these two claims i. e. 3 and 4 provided in the agreement the arbitrator was bound by the same and could not resort to any other criteria for determining these claims. This is a legal error apparent on the face of it. On the other hand on behalf of the petitioner it is stated that the contention of the respondent is without substance. The arbitrator in the statement of detailed reasons had given sufficient indications to justify his reasons. The findings of the Arbitrator are final. I have considered this aspect of the matter. While disposing of the objections on behalf of the Objector that the award was bereft of reasons this court by order dated 11. 4. 1986 against claims No. 3 and 4 observed:- "under claims Nos. 3 and 4 the arbitrator gave the following uniform reasons:- this claim is justified since the claimants quoted the rates keeping in mind the finished produce. Therefore, reduction in over all. sizes did not reduce the cost of overall product as envisaged. I, therefore, di