Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’), challenging the award dated 16th May, 2005 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The only issue that has been raised in the present petition is in respect of award of interest by the Tribunal.

2. The submission of Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, is that the pre-reference interest and pendente lite interest cannot be granted by the Arbitrators in view of clause 16 of the General Conditions of Contract (hereinafter, ‘GCC’). She relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Chittaranjan Maity vs. Union of India 2017 (12) SCALE 216 (hereinafter, ‘Chittaranjan Maity’) wherein the Supreme Court considered an identical clause i.e. clause 16(2) and held that interest is not payable, in view of Section 31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act.

3. The matter was adjourned from time to time for awaiting the decision Union of India vs. M/s Pradeep Vinod Construction Co. [Civil Appeal No.2099/2017, Decided on - 3rd August, 2017] (hereinafter, ‘Pradeep Vinod Construction Co.’), which was between the same parties. The said decision was rendered by the Supreme Court on 3rd August, 2017 wherein the award of interest was upheld. Learned counsel for the Respondent has placed on record a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court.

4. The Parties have been heard. Learned counsel for the Petitioner however submits that in view of the subsequent judgment in Chittaranjan Maity (supra), interest cannot be awarded either for the pre-reference period or pendente lite. However, insofar as post-award interest is concerned, she does not dispute that the same can be awarded. She further submits that the judgment in Chittaranjan Maity (supra) considers an identical clause of the GCC and is subsequent to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pradeep Vinod Construction Co. (supra), and, would therefore be binding on this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that clause 16 has to be considered in its entirety. The said clause relates only to earnest money and security deposit and does not relate to other claims which may be adjudicated/rejected by the Tribunal. Clause 16(2) and 16(3) cannot be expanded in their scope and made applicable to all claims. According to him, since the judgment in Pradeep Vinod Construction Co. (supra) was between the same parties, the said judgment would be applicable. According to him, Chittaranjan Maity (supra) does not consider clause 16(1) and hence he submits that the said judgment should not be applied.

6. Mr. S.W. Haider, learned counsel for the Respondent also submits that the judgment in Pradeep Vinod Construction Co. (supra) has been followed by this Court in Union of India vs. M/s. Manraj Enterprises [O.M.P.330/2011 decision dated 20th September, 2017] (hereinafter, ‘Manraj Enterprises’) wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has applied the judgment. Ms. Mohan, however, submits that the decision in Manraj Enterprises (supra) was rendered prior to the judgment in Chittaranjan Maity (supra) and hence there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to consider the said judgment.

7. Clause 16(3) of the agreement reads as under:-

"(3) No interest will be payable upon the earnest money of the security deposit or amounts payable to the contractor under the contract, but Government Securities deposited in terms of sub-clause (1) of this clause will be repayable with interest accrued thereto."

8. The question of grant of interest under clause 16 of the General Conditions of Contract has been considered in a large number of decisions. The first and foremost issue to be highlighted is that under Section 31(7) of the 1996 Act, the power of the Arbitral Tribunal to award interest has been clearly provided. Section 31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act deals wit