An arbitrator appointed under the Co-operative Societies Act has the power to award future interest up to the date of the award and interest at a rate not exceeding 6% per annum from the date of the award till the date of realization, similar to the powers of a court under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the arbitrator cannot award costs at a flat rate without determining the actual expenses incurred by the parties.

B.R.Tuli, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ No. 570 of 1972, Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others, Civil Writ No. 1153 of 1972, Mathra Dass v. State of Punjab and others, and Civil Writ No. 2140 of 1972, Kehar Singh v. State of Punjab and others, because of the similarity of the questions of law involved in all these cases.

2. In order to decide the points of law involved in these cases, the facts of Civil Writ No. 1153 of 1972 may be stated. The petitioner took a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the Co-operative Agriculture Service Society of Bandlehri, tehsil Anand Pur Sahib, district Ropar, of which he is one of the members. He took a further loan of Rs. 340/-. Since he did not repay these loans, proceedings for arbitration were taken under section 55 of the Punjab Co- operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). It was also alleged by the Co-operative Society that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 18,500/- on November 7, 1968, but this loan was denied by the petitioner. The arbitrator gave award in favour of the Co-operative Society and against the petitioner directing him to pay the sum of Rs. 28,840/- on account of principal, Rs. 5096.94 on account of interest at the rate of Rs. 9.37 Paise per cent per annum to the date of the award and Rs. 8484. 23 Paise on account of costs. In all, the claim of the Co-operative Society against the petitioner was allowed for Rs. 42.421.17 Paise with the direction that he will pay interest at the rate of Rs. 9.37 Paise per cent per annum till the date of realisation on the principal amount of Rs. 28,840/-. Against that award, the petitioner filed an appeal which was decided by the Under Secretary Development (I) (Cooperation), Punjab, in exercise of the powers under section 69 of the Act. The Under Secretary upheld the award of the arbitrator so far as it related to the loans of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 340/- along with interest and costs on those amounts but set aside that part of the award which related to the loan of Rs. 18,500/-. He remanded the case for fresh decision by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ropar, with regard to the amount of Rs. 18,500/-. The award and the order of the Under Secretary to Government, Punjab, have been challenged by the petitioner in this petition to which a written statement has been filed by respondent No. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sardara Singh, arbitrator, has made his award with regard to the amount of Rs. 18,500/- on April 18, 1972. That award has not been challenged in this petition and, therefore, is not for consideration before me.

3. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority (Under Secretary to Government, Punjab) should have set aside the award as a whole because of the reason that he could not uphold it in respect of Rs. 18,500/-. In my opinion, this submission has no merit because separate arbitration proceedings could have been taken in respect of each loan and if all the three loans were lumped together in one reference, the appellate authority could have upheld the award in respect of the loans proved and set it aside in respect of the loans which were not proved. In any case, this matter is of academic interest only because the petitioner does not deny his liability for the two loans of Rs. 10,340/-. He, however, contends that the arbitrator, not being a Court, could not award any interest beyond the date of the award nor could he award costs at a flat rate of 25 per cent of the amount awarded but he had to determine the expenses incurred by the Co-operative Society in order to award costs.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Surinder Nath Goel, A.I.R. 1960 Punjab 623, which was a case under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and it was held, as per head-note (b), as under :-

"Section 29 gives specific powers to t