The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Arbitrator has the jurisdiction to award interest in the absence of specific stipulation or prohibition in the contract.

1. 1. The State of Rajasthan has filed the present civil misc. appeal against the order dated 2.6.2000 passed by the District Judge, Kota whereby the objections filed by the appellant against the award dated 24.11.1995 passed by the sole Arbitrator had been dismissed.

2. Vide order dated 3.5.1991, one Prabhakar Sharma was appointed as sole Arbitrator who was Deputy Secretary to the Government and T.A. to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department. The statement of claim was filed by the respondent. Even the counter claim was filed by the appellant. According to the appellant, the work assigned to the respondent No.1 was in regard to the work of designs, fabrication, supply and erection of gates of Bhim Sagar Dam in District Jhalawar which work was to be completed within 12 months; because of certain clarification and omissions, the work order had to be revised and, therefore, superseding the earlier work order, the date of completion was also reivsed. Claims were filed on account of many heads an most of the claims related to the delay caused by the appellant. Ultimately, the arbitrator had given an award on 24.11.1995, wherein an amount of Rs. 21,72,410/- was awarded along with interest @ 12% p.a.

3. Award was filed in the civil court for making it rule of court. It was objected to by the appellant by filing objections.

4. It was the contention that the award was not only contrary to the provisions of law but also against the terms and conditions of the agreement.

5. It is one of the contention that in regard to claim No.1(B) to the tune of Rs. 9,33,518/-, the awarding of interest thereupon was beyond the scope of agreement. It is also argued that the refund of the security along with interest on it was not warranted in view of the fact that the work had not been finished by the respondent in time. Certain other items have also been disputed in the ground of appeal. The court below had observed that even though certain objections were taken but nothing had been shown to the court as to how the Arbitrator had misconducted and it had been observed by the court below that the civil court cannot sit and decide as an appellate court on the award given by the Arbitrator. Except the mere allegations, nothing was brought on record to show that the Arbitrator had misconducted in giving the award.

6. I have gone through the award. It has been mentioned by the Arbitrator that even the claimant (respondent before the Arbitrator) had partially admitted the fact that the site for erection was not even handed over to the Contractor for number of years and three years delay was caused by the appellant itself. It was also admitted fact that even though the date of completion was 11.5.1982, but still the civil works were not ready for execution and ultimately erection work was taken up in hand in January 1987. Arbitrator had rejected as many as nine claims out of 16 claims; Interest of 12% was awarded. Even before this court, nothing has been brought on record to show as to how Arbitrator had misconducted except the bare allegation.

7. The parties rely on judgments (1) 2000(3) SCC 27, (2) 1993(3) SCC 762, (3) 1999(9) SCC 514, (4) 1998(1) SCC 418, (5) 2000(3) SCC 26 and (6) 2000(1) Supp. SCC 205.

8. Counsel for the appellant states that the award is likely to be set aside on the ground that it is not speaking award and that the interest has been unwarrantedly awarded by the Arbitrator.

9. In the case of (7) Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa etc. etc. Vs. N.C. Budharaj (dead) by L.Rs. etc. etc.-2000(1) Supreme 205, it was held that the arbitrator appointed with or without intervention of Court has jurisdiction to award interest on sums found due and payable for pre-reference period in absence of any specific stipulation or prohibition in contract to claim or grant any such interest.

10. In (8) State of J & K and another v. Dev Dutt and another AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3196, the claim raised by the contractor on the