The court clarified that while the decision of an authority may be treated as final on certain aspects of a contract, depriving the Arbitrator of jurisdiction, the court has the power to grant interest on the Award amount from the date of Award till realization, as per the Interest Act, 1978 and Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) THE respondent DDA has filed objections under Sections 30and 33 of the Arbitration Act against the Award dated 17/07/1990 vide I. A. No. 11384 of 1990. The learned Counsel for the objector has challenged the Award so faras it relates to Claims No. 1 and 2 of the contractor/petitioner herein. Under claimno. 1, the claimant had claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 on account of under paymentdue to part rates for the work executed and completed till rescision of the work. Inthe Award on this point the Arbitrator has noted that the respondent DDA hadadmitted that a sum of Rs. 20,506. 00 had been withheld in part rates. The plea of therespondent regarding justification for withholding the said amount was rejected bythe Arbitrator after considering the same on merits. At this stage, this Court is notsitting in appeal over the decision of the Arbitrator. I find no ground to interfere withthe findings of the Arbitrator with respect to Claim No. 1 under which a sum of Rs. 20,506. 00 has been awarded by the Arbitrator in favour of the claimant.

( 2 ) THE objection of the respondent DDA regarding Claim No. 2 is based onclause No. 2 of the agreement between the parties. It is submitted that under Clause2, the decision of the Superintend ing Engineer regarding levy of penalty is final and,therefore, cannot be subject matter of arbitration. Clause No. 2 of the contract isreproduced below:

"clause 2.-The time allowed for carrying out the work as entered in thetender shall be strictly observed by the contractor and shall be deemed to beof the essence of the contract on the part of the contractor and shall be reckonedfrom the Tenth Day after the date on which the order to commence the workis issued to contractor. The work shall throughout the stipulated period of thecontract be proceeded with all due diligence and the contractor shall pay ascompensation an amount equal to one percent, or such smaller amount as thesuperintending Engineer, Delhi Development Authority (whose decision inwriting shall be final) may decide on the amount of the estimated cost of thewhole work as shown in the tender, for every day that the work remainsuncommenced or unfinished, after the proper dates. And further, to ensuregood progress during the execution of the work, the contractor shall be boundin all cases in which the time allowed for any work exceeds, one month (savefor special jobs) to complete one-eight of the whole of the work before one-fourth of the whole time allowed under the contract has elapsed; three-eightof the work, before one half of such time has elapsed, and three-fourth of thework, before three-fourth of such time has elapsed. However for special jobsif a time-schedule has been submitted by the Contractor and the same has beenaccepted by the Engineer-in-Charge, the contractor shall comply with the saidtime-schedule. In the event of the contractor failing to comply with thiscondition, he shall liable to pay as compensation an amount equal to onepercent or such smaller amount as the Superintending Engineer, Delhidevelopment Authority (whose decision in writing shall be final) may decideon the said estimated cost of the whole work for every day that the duequantity of work remains incomplete; provided always that the entire amountof compensation to be paid under the provision of this clause shall not exceedten percent, on the estimated cost of the work as shown in the tender. "

( 3 ) IT is settled law that if the decision of an authority is treated as final on someaspect of the contract as per the provisions of the contract, such a matter cannot bereferred TO to arbitration. Such a provision deprives the Arbitrator of any jurisdictionto adjudicate upon the controversy. Reference may be made to Delhi Developmentauthority v. Sudhir Brothers, 57 (1995) D. L. T. 474. In the present case, the discussionin the Award on Claim No. 2 itself shows that the Superintending Engineer hadthrough his letter dated 3/05/1990 levied a penalty of Rs. 29,