The court has the power to grant interest in cases governed by the Interest Act, 1978, as S. 3(1)(A) of the Arbitration Act would enable it to award interest in this proceeding and also by invoking S. 29 of the Arbitration Act.

This petition was filed by Mr. Justice V.V. Raghavan who was appointed as the sole Arbitrator in regard to the disputes between the first respondent, M/s. Madras Refineries Ltd., Madras and the second respondent M/s. Sri Prasad Constructions.

2. The first respondent M/s. Madras Refineries Ltd. is a limited Company having its office at Manali, Madras-68. The second respondent is M/s. Sri Prasad Constructions represented by its sole Proprietor Ch. Baba Prasad, having its office at No. 11, Nawab Habibullah Avenue, Nungambakkam, Madras-34.

3. The first respondent with a view to expand its activities at Manali, called for tenders for site grading work at Manali as a first step in their expansion Scheme. The second respondent was one of the eight tenderers and after negotiations the second respondents tender was accepted on 22.4.1981 and the work was to be completed within one year, i.e, within 12 months. As per the contract the work was to be done at seven places in Manali and time was made the essence of the contract, the outer limit of one year in any event was to be kept up, although for various items of work at the seven places any delay may be excused and time extended, and if not so extended under the terms of the contract, the second respondent agreed to pay compensation up to a maximum of 10% of the contract value.

4. It is stated in the petition that the second respondent committed default in execution of the contract, with a result that they had to pay compensation sought to be recovered at the maximum rate. The second respondent did not complete the work within the one year period resulting in the appointment of a substitute contractor for completing the balance of the work. Thus M/s. Madras Refineries, the first respondent, claimed Rs. 3,46,678 as compensation for delay during the period of the contract and a sum of Rs. 25,13,205/as excess payment by reason of the appointment of the substituted contractor, which was increased to Rs. 32,50,446/- by an amendment of the claim.

5. The second respondent, Sri Prasad Constructions disputed the claim of the first respondent and made a counter claim under various heads like value of, materials at site, compensation for wrongful termination of contract, etc., with the result that the Arbitration clause had to be invoked. Under the Arbitration clause, the Chairman of the first respondent, M/s. Madras Refineries Ltd. or his nominee has to decide the dispute between the parties. The first respondent in deciding the disputes between the parties, named Mr. Justice V.V. Raghavan, (Retired), who is the petitioner herein, as the Sole Arbitrator. Accordingly the petitioner also consented to act as an Arbitrator and convened the first meeting and settled the procedure and proceeded with the enquiry.

6. The first respondent filed 58 documents in support of their case and the second respondent filed

97 documents. There was no oral evidence. After elaborate enquiry, the Arbitrator made an award on 15.4.1984 directing the first respondent M/s. Madras Refineries Ltd., to pay the second respondent a sum of Rs. 4,32,260/and gave a months time for payment and further directed payment of interest at 11% per annum, the interest to run on the expiry of the one month period from the date of the award namely, by 15.5.1984. Along with the original award the petitioner had also enclosed the documents filed by the first respondent (Annexure I), documents filed by the second respondent (Annexure II), the minutes of the 51 meetings (Annexure III), and extension of time for making the award made from time to time on consent of the parties (Annexure IV). The petitioner therefore prayed this Court to receive the Award dated 15.4.1984 and to issue notices to the respondents of filing of the above award.

7. It is seen from the receiving seal of the Original Side of our Court, the Original Petition was presented on 29.9.1984. The matter was returned by the High Court office on 1.10.1984 and the papers w