The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Arbitration Act X of 1940, S.29, regarding the authority to grant interest, and the court's power to modify an award based on legal errors.

1. These are appeals by the State of Kerala from the common judgment of the Subordinate Judge., Trivandrum, disposing of two petitions, one filed by the appellant for setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator, Mr. R. Sankaranarayana Iyer, Retired Judge of the erstwhile Travancore -High Court, and the other filed by the respondent, a contractor, for correction and modification of the award.. The Subordinate Judge refused to . set aside the award in its entirety but modified it.

2. The salient facts giving rise to the disputes between the parties are, as follows. The respondent had undertaken the construction of Mukunnara bridge under the appellant consequent on the acceptance of his tender. The work connected with it was started in 1953 and completed in May 1963. There was delay in the execution of the work. While the respondent imputed it to the appellant the latter imputed it to the former. The work done included not only the construction of the bridge but also the approach roads to it and certain other extra items. When disputes arose between the parties about the amount to be paid to the respondent for the work done by him they were referred to arbitration and Mr. R. Sankaranarayana Iyer was appointed Arbitrator. After he passed the award on 26-3-1969 the petitions referred to above for setting aside the award and correction of it were filed.

3. Only three points were pressed in these appeals by the learned Government Pleader who appeared on behalf of the appellant and they were about (1) compensation given to the respondent for the extra work done by him, (2) compensation given to him for the delay on the part of the appellant and (3) granting of interest on the amount due to him.

4. The first point does not appear to have been pressed before the Subordinate Judge. There is no.ground in the appeal memoranda that the point was pressed and was not considered by him. Further there is no ground also taken in the appeal memoranda regarding the first point. Ia these circumstances the appellant cannot,be allowed to resuscitate the first point which it had practically abandoned and we decline to consider it.

5. The only argument advanced on behalf of the appellant regarding the second point was that the Arbitrator was not competent to go into the question as to who was responsible for the delay in the execution of the work as the tender submitted by the respondent and accepted by the appellant did not provide for compensation for delay. That has no force because in the subsequent agreement dated 28-9-1968 between the parties referring the disputes to Arbitrator two of the points specifically referred to him were:

'T Whether the Public Works Department or the contractor, is responsible for the delay, in completing the work as per the contract within the stipulated ."period.

II. Tf the contractor is not responsible, for such delays, what is the extent of relief to which be is entitled."

and they authorised him to decide who was responsible for the delay is the execution of the work and grant relief regarding the same. There is no merit in the second point.

6. The only other point surviving for consideration is that regarding interest and in considering it we have to see whether the Arbitrator is competent to grant interest, and if so from what date and whether the award is liable to be set aside if the awarding of interest is illegal.

7. The provision in the Arbitration Act, X of 1940, dealing with interest is S.29 which reads:

"Where and in so far as an award is for the payment of money the court may in the decree order interest, from the date of the decree at such rate as the court deems reasonable, to be paid on the principal sum as adjudged by the award and confirmed by the decree."

It only empowers the court to award interest from the date of the decree on the principal sum adjudged by the award and confirmed by the decree. There is nothing in the Arbitration Act giving power to the Arbitrator to award interest whether