An arbitrator has no jurisdiction to award future interest beyond the date of the decree.

( 1 ) THE petitioner Shri Kali Charan Sharma, sole proprietor of M/s. Bhartiya Construction Co. entered into an agreement dated 1st March, 1968 with the Delhi Electric (Electricity?) Supply Undertaking of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondent No. 1, for the construction of 9 sub-station buildings at different places, for instance, Defence Colony, Jamia Milla etc. The contract inter alia provided for reference of the disputes between the parties arising out of or in relation to the said contract to arbitration vide clause No. 29. Subsequently, some disputes arose between the parties and the same were referred to arbitration in terms of clause 29 which envisages appointment of one arbitrator by each of the parties. Shorn of unnecessary details, it may be stated that an award was made by Shri Gaiha as sole arbitrator on 18th October, 1977 despite stay order issued by this Court in CMP 115a of 1977, under Sections 9 (b) and 11 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Thereupon, the petitioner filed suit No. 927a of 1977 under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act for making the award a rule of the Court. However, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondent No. 1, filed objections to the award, under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act. Eventually, vide order dated 16th July, 1979, this Court (D. K. Kapur, J.) set aside the award and appointed Shri B. C. Misra a retired Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator to determine the disputes between the parties. The petitioner lodged claims totalling Rs. 5,59,000. 00 p. on different counts besides interest and costs. Respondent No. 1 while opposing the claims made by the petitioner filed a counter-claim on various counts aggregating to Rs. 1,83,064. 00 besides interest and costs. Eventually, the sole arbitrator made an award on 29th July, 1980 and he allowed the claim of the plaintiff and for a total sum of Rs 2,95,440. 00 in full and final settlement of all the claims and disputes between the parties including the counterclaim of the respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner moved an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act being Suit No. 392a/80 with the request that the award made by the sole arbitrator on 29th July, 1980 be filed in Court and made a rule of the Court. On the award being filed and both the parties having been served, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondent No. 1 has filed objections to the award which are embodied in the instant application.

( 2 ) A perusal of the award in question will show that it is a non-speaking award and the learned arbitrator has not assigned any reasons which influence him in arriving at the lump sum of Rs. 2. 95,440. 00 awarded to the petitioner. After referring to the contract in question, the learned arbitrator has simply mentioned the total claim made by the petitioner as also the total claim made by respondent No. 1 by way of counter-claim. He has then proceeded to make this award without giving any reason therefor.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has made a valiant effort before this Court to assail the award on the grounds of (i) its being bad in law on account of an error apparent on the face if it; (ii) legal miscounduct on the part of the arbitrator in not deciding the real question in controversy, and (iii) in awarding future interest till the date of realization in the face of Section 29 of the Act. His line of argument is not the main controversy between the parties centered round the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to any enhancement over and above the contract rate. He has pointed out that the contract in question was awarded to the petitioner at percentage basis, same being 25% above the schedule of rates and it did not embody any escalation clause. Thus according to him, the price of construction, being Rs. 4,93,918. 75 p. was firm and he has been paid accordingly for the work actually executed. In other words, according to respondent No. 1, the cost of constru