The order of reference defines the limits of the Arbitrator's authority and jurisdiction, and the awarded interest rate can be adjusted based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

1. Common questions of fact and law have been raised in these appeals, as such, we propose to dispose of these by this common judgment.

2. In order to understand the controversy involved in these appeals, the facts are required to be noticed which are as under:-

Two appeals under Section 39 of the J&K Arbitration Act have been preferred by the appellant against order dated 22.04.1999 passed in CMP No.345/94 (in AA No. 146/94) and order dated 14.09.1999 passed in CMP No.346/94 (in AA no.147/94).

CIMA No. 107-A/2001.

3. A contract for construction of Intake Structure for Pump House at Kishanpur was allotted in favour of the respondent-claimant-Shiv Lal Abrol (since dead), whose legal heirs have been brought on record (hereinafter referred to as claimant-non-objectors). Certain disputes arose between the parties which impelled the claimant to invoke Clause 55 of the Contract Agreement for referring the matter to the Arbitrator. The matter came to be referred to the Arbitrator through the intervention of the Court in A.A. No.170/1991. It seems that an appeal (CIMA No.135/1992) came to be preferred against the order of reference, which finally came to be disposed of vide order dated 26.07.1993 with the directions to the Chief Engineer In-charge of the work to appoint one Arbitrator from the panel of three persons after obtaining consent from the parties and it was also directed that appointed Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference thereafter. The Court also directed that the parties shall be at liberty to file their claims and counter claims before the Arbitrator.

4. Reference was made to the appointed Arbitrator who, after examining the rival claims of the parties, passed an award of Rs.3,19,470 in favour of the claimant, which was required to be paid within a period of one month from the date of the award, failing which the claimant was held entitled to pendentlite interest @ 10% on the total awarded amount from the date of the award till its realization.

5. Thereafter, award came to be filed in this court for making it rule of the court. Notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 2002 came to be issued to the parties. Objections were filed by the Objector-Corporation. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 22.04.1999, rejected the objections filed by the Objector-Corporation under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act and made the award rule of the court. Learned Single Judge also awarded interest on item Nos.1,2 and 3 of the said award from the date of decree till the date of payment. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

CIMA No. 108-A/2001.

6. The contract was allotted for construction of boundary wall at Grid Station, Kishanpur. Certain disputes were raised by the respondent-claimant-Shiv Lal Abrol (since dead) whose legal heirs have been brought on record (hereinafter referred to as claimant-non-objectors), regarding the aforementioned work as a result of which reference was sought to the Arbitrator for resolving the disputes through the intervention of the Court. Arbitration Application No.168/91 came to be filed in the court and, accordingly, reference was made to the Arbitrator by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.09.1992. As the objector-Corporation was not satisfied with such appointment, an appeal came to be filed, which came to be disposed of by setting aside the appointment of earlier Arbitrator with a direction to the Chief Engineer In-charge of the work to appoint one Arbitrator from the panel of three persons after obtaining consent from the parties and it was directed that the appointed Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference thereafter. It was also directed that the parties shall be at liberty to file their claims and counter claims before the Arbitrator.

7. Reference was made to the appointed Arbitrator, who, after examining the rival claims of the parties, passed an award of Rs.9,07,300