An arbitrator has jurisdiction to award interest on the principal amount, even future interest, unless there is a specific clause in the agreement prohibiting such an award.

S. ACHARYA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal Under Section 39 (1) of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') against the order passed by the learned Subordinate judge, Cuttack in T. S. No. 229 of 1978.

( 2 ) THE Arbitrator's award in respect of certain disputes between the parties was submitted to the court below to make the same a rule of the court. The award was challenged Under Section 30 of the Act in the court below by the appellant herein. The court below, on rehearing both the parties, has partly allowed the objection by only scaling down the rate of interest awarded by the Arbitrator from 12 per cent to 6 per cent per annum and has dismissed all the other objections against the award.

( 3 ) IT was urged by Mr. Mohapatra, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the court below acted illegally in not appreciating the contention of the appellant that as the items of claim on which the award was passed were all in respect of extra work done by the respon-dent-contrator, the claims on those items were beyond the scope and ambit of the arbitration Clause 23 of the agreement between the parties, and hence fee Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to pass any award in respect of the same, and so the award in respcet of the said items of claim was illegal, without any force of law, and could not be given effect to. It was further contended feat the grant of interest by the Arbitrator, in the absence of specific claim to that effect, was illegal and without jurisdiction and so fee court acted illegally in directing payment of interest in the decree passed by it.

( 4 ) THE court below has overruled the appellant's objections against the arbitrator's award which relates to the items of claim regarding fee work done by the contractor on the ground that the award on fee face of it does not show that the appellant's objections against these claims were not considered, or that the Arbitrator in any way violated the principles of natural justice or misconducted himself while conducting the arbitration proceeding, or that fee arbitration proceeding was any way vitiated. The impugned order shows that the award so far as it relates to the claim items Nos. 11, 18, 19, 20 and 21 was not challenged by either party in fee court below. The court below has also held that fee claims in respect of items 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22 and 23 arise out of the work for the execution of which Agreement No. F/2 of 197273 was executed by both fee parties. The appellant's objection against the award in respect of these items on the ground of improper assessment of evidence was rightly dismissed by the court below, as the court was not to act as an appellate court in such matters. The court below also finds that the objections against the Arbitrator's award in respect of the aforesaid items are not well founded or based on any good ground on which the same can be legally challenged. Nothing substantial is urged on which the award in respect of these items or the order of the court below in this connection can any way he interfered with. It is now also well set-tied by a series of decisions of this Court that disputes regarding claims made in respect of extra work done in connection with the main work entrusted to the contractor under the arbitration agreement can be referred to and settled by arbitration as per Clause 12 read with Clause 23 of such agreements (See the decisions in C. R. Nos. 8 and 10 to 16 of 1979, Reported in (1979) 48 Cut LT 505 and C. R. No. 159 of 1976 of this court ). Thus the appellant's objection against the award on this score is without any weight or substance.

( 5 ) IT is next contended by Mr. Mohapatra, the learned counsel for the appellant, that there is nothing in any relevant statute or contract enabling the Arbitrator to grant interest on the principal amount, and so his direction to that effect in the award is without jurisdiction and hence the decree for payment of interest is illegal and has to