JUDGMENT

K. N. SINGH, CJI:- These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court making the award made by the Arbitrator rule of the court. The appellants challenged the validity of the award before this Court on two grounds, namely; (1) the Award was vitiated as it contained no reasons; and (2) the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award pendente lite interest.

2. The first question was considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Raipur Development Authority v. Chokhamal Contractors, (1989) 2 SCC 721. The Constitution Bench held that an award is not liable to be set aside merely on the ground of absence of reasons. The Constitution Bench further held that where the arbitration agreement itself stipulated reasons for the award the Arbitrator is under a. legal obligation to give reasons. Thus the first question stands concluded against the appellants. As regards the second question, when the appeal was taken up for hearing by a Division Bench the appellants placed reliance on a Three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Executive Engineer Irrigation, Galimala v. Abnaduta Jena, (1988) 1 SCR 253, wherein it was held that the Arbitrator to whom the refere