V.B.Gupta, J. Appellant has filed present appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short as “Act”) against order dated 18th April, 2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi.

2. Brief facts are that, parties entered into agreements dated 7th September,2000 (for first film) and dated 1st May, 2003 (for second film). Respondent agreed to make a documentary film on behalf of the appellant. The terms and conditions were contained in the agreements. Since, payments were not made in time, therefore, respondent claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on those amounts, payment of which had been made late. When payment was not made respondent invoked arbitration clause and served notice dated 7th February, 2005 for nominating the arbitrator. However, Secretary, Department of Culture, did not nominate the arbitrator, compelling respondent to file a petition u/s 11 (6) of the Act. In that petition, order dated 10th August, 2005 was passed and Sh. Sudhir Sharma, was appointed as sole arbitrator, who gave award dated 24th December, 2005. 3. The award was challenged on following grounds;

(i) That respondent admitted that he had received all payments as per agreement;

(ii) That there was no agreement between the parties to pay the interest, therefore, arbitrator had transgressed its jurisdiction.

4. Trial court, vide impugned order, dismissed the objections of appellant.

5. It is contented by learned counsel for appellant that there is no clause in both the agreements, regarding extra length of film. Further, as per clause 13 of the agreements, it is clearly stipulated that price of documentary shall not exceed cost indicated in clause 10 of the agreements, except for statutory levies and duties. Moreover, as per admission made by respondent, he had received full payment and nothing remains to be paid.

6. Learned counsel for appellant in support of its contentions referred to a decision of Supreme Court, reported as Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s Chandu Construction & Anr; JT 2007 (5) SC 305, in which it was observed; “In our view, by awarding extra payment for supply of sand the arbitrator has out-stepped confines of the contract. This error on his part cannot be said to be on account of misconstruing of the terms of the contract but it was by way of disregarding the contract, manifestly ignoring the clear stipulation in the contract. In our opinion, by doing so, the arbitrator misdirected and misconducted himself. Hence, the award made by the arbitration in respect of claim No. 9 on the face of it, is beyond his jurisdiction; is illegal and needs being set aside”.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contended that as per terms of the agreements, the films were to be of forty five minutes, but same were made of longer duration and that is why respondent has claimed extra payment. As far as payment of interest is concerned, interest has been awarded for the delayed payment.

8. It is also contended that under Section 34 of the Act, award cannot be reopened. In support learned counsel has referred following judgments. (i) Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd; (2003) 5 SCC 705; (ii) DDA Vs. Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd; 2004(3) Arb. LR 481 (Delhi) (DB); (iii) DDA Vs. Sahdev Brothers; 97(2002) DLT 902 (DB); (iv) Sharma & Associates Contractors Pvt. Ltd Vs. Progressive Construction Ltd; 2004 (3) Arb. LR 485 (Delhi); (v) UOI Vs. Hakam Chand & Co.; 2002 (65) DRJ 400; (vi) Ircon International Ltd. Vs. Arvind Construction Co Ltd.; 1999 (50) DRJ 769; and (vii)National Highway Authority of India Vs. ITD Comentation India Ltd.; 2008 (100) DRJ 431 (DB);

9. Section 34 of the Act, read as under:-

“34. Application for setting aside arbitral ward-(1) Recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub Section (3) (2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the court only i