( 1 ) THE petitioner, a contractor, filed this petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act praying that respondent No. 2 who was the Arbitrator, bedirected to file his award dated 15-1-1983 and the arbitration proceedings in the court. On notice being issued the Arbitrator filed his award and the proceedings. Notice of the filing of the award was given to the parties. Union of India-respondent No. 1 filed objections and these were registered as IA No. 3002/83. These were filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act.

( 2 ) ON pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

1. Is the award liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the objection petition ? 2. Relief. Evidence was directed to be lead by affidavits.

( 3 ) IT is a speaking award. There was a contract which was awarded to the petitioner-contractor for the work of construction of Load Despatch Centre for N. R. E. B. at Katwaria Sarai. The agreement bears No. CE (2)/ee D. O. I, of 1977-78. Disputes and differences having arisen, these were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri G. V. S. Krishnamurthy, respondent No. 2. As noted above, he gave his award on 15-l-1983. He accepted various claims of the petitioner contractor. Union of India raised objections to only 3 of the claims and these are :-~

(I) Claim No. 3-under which the contractor claimed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000. 00 under clause 10 (C) of the agreement on account of alleged enhancement of cost of building material. This was allowed for Rs. 3,48. 840. 00. (ii) , Claim No. 5-und:er which the contractor claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 towards difference in cost of alleged use of white cement instead of ordinary cement. His claim was allowed for Rs. 7. 23-4. 00. (iii) Claim No. 8- Under which the contractor claimed a sum of Rs. 70,000. 00 towards interest at the rate of 12% per annum w. e. f. 1-1-1980 upto. . 31-12-1980 on a sum of Rs. 5,76,000. 00 pendente lite. Under this, the contractor was awarded interest pendente lite at the rate of 12% per annum on the total sum of the award. from 10-11-1981 to the date of the award. The contractor was further awarded interest at this rate on the total sum. of the award from the date of the award to the date of the decree or payment, whichever, was earlier. I will deal with claims No. 5 and 8 first. In Union of India v. Bungo Steel Furniture Private Ltd. , (AIR 1967 SC 1032) it was held that though Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to arbitration proceedings but that Section could be applied by the Arbitrator for awarding interest in cases where court in suit having jurisdiction of the subject matter covered by Section 34 of the Code. could grant; a decree for interest. It was held that the Arbitrator had authority to grant interest from the date of the award to the date of decree. The section of interest in the present case was referred to the Arbitrator who awarded interest. It can not be said that there is any error in the award of interest by the Arbitrator. The objection of the Union of India to claim No. 8 is, therefore, rejected.

( 4 ) IN the contract documents it is mentioned that white gia-ed tiles. are to be affixed with white cement slurry. Under the contract cement is one of the items to be supplied by the Union of India. Though it is mentioned that 1800 cement bags would be supplied and even the rate of Rs. 400. 00 per M. T. is mentioned, it can not be denied that white cement was,. in fact, used. Mr. Bagai, learned counsel for Union of India submitted that the cement in the contract referred to only grey cement. But then Arbitrator has returned a finding that white cement was, in fact, used and that was at The instance of the Union of India and that no distinction was made between the white cement and ordinary cement in the contract. The Arbitrator was, therefore, of the view that non-supply of white cement by the respondent Union of India was a failure at their hand. There is, thus,