JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Respondent Govinda Choudhry was a Contractor under The State of Orissa. The Contract was that be would construct five high level bridges and a vented causeway on the Pipli-Konark Road. One agreement in Form F2 was signed on the 10th of March, 1961. The construction was completed on The 21st of March, (sic). Under The Agreement, The date of preparation of the final bill for. The work was within one month from the date of completion of the work. In fact, however, The final bill was prepared on 29th of March, 1965. It need hardly be stated that after the preparation of the final bill, the State is to pay the money to the Contractor towards The work done. As dispute arose regarding the quantum of payment, The Contractor wanted that the matter should be referred to arbitration through Court under The terms of the arbitration agreement. Mr. S.K. Palit, retired Chief Engineer was appointed as The Arbitrator. Both parties appeared before him. He passed the Award on 16th January, 1970 u/s 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). After intimation of the passing of The Award was given to the parties, an objection was filed by the State of Orissa (Appellant). The Contractor filed a counter to the objection stating that no application bad been filed by the Appellant u/s 33 of the Act for setting aside the Award on the grounds mentioned in Section 30. Though no application u/s 33 of the Act was filed, yet the learned Subordinate Judge considered the objections filed by the Appellant. After over-ruling the objections, he passed a judgment in terms of the A ward. It is against that judgment that the present appeal has been filed. 2. Law is now well settled that the Award cannot be set aside by this Court unless there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. No such error was pressed into service by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Appellant. The Award cannot, therefore, be set aside on that ground. 3. 2. Law is now well settled that the Award cannot be set aside by this Court unless there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. No such error was pressed into service by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Appellant. The Award cannot, therefore, be set aside on that ground. 3. The validity of the Award was questioned on the following two grounds: (1) That the Arbitrator bad no jurisdiction to award interest as there was no such terms in the Agreement ; and (2) that the Arbitrator expressed bias in conducting the enquiry and thus be misconducted himself. Both The contentions are devoid of any merit. 4. It is now (sic) settled by series of Supreme Court' decisions that unless there is a specific clause in the Agreement, prohibiting award of interest, the Arbitrator has jurisdiction to award interest from the due date of payment till the date of the award. Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan Vs. Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore. Union of India (UOI) Vs. Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd. and Ashok Construction Co. v. Union of India 1970 S.C.D. 530. The Award of the Arbitrator cannot, therefore, be questioned on the ground that he allowed interest from the due date till the date of the decree. There was no term in the Agreement that interest is not to be awarded. The dispute included a specific reference to the award of interest. As such the Arbitrator exercised his jurisdiction legally in awarding interest. 5. The foundation of the contention that the arbitrator entertained (sic) against the Appellant is to be found from the following observation of the arbitrator made in the Award itself. It runs thus: I requested party No. 2 to produce all relevant and important documents like but I regret to mention that excepting a few hand receipts signed by the party No. 1 no other of the above noted basic and important documents could be produced by the party No. 2 during the period of my enquiry and hearing off this case, though about one year's time was allowed to the party No. 2. The State of affairs, so far as the maintenance of records in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Bhubaneswar Division is really very disappointing. The State of affairs, so far as the maintenance of records in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Bhubaneswar Division is really very disappointing. I have tried my best to find of the correct facts of each and every item of claim, out of the remaining relevant documents and papers submitted by both the parties. 6. In our view, the criticism made by the Arbitrator was absolutely fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was within his jurisdiction to express his regret at the famous of the Departments in maintenance of records and non-production thereof. There is absolutely no room for thinking that he was influenced by any bias in The conduct of the enquiry. 7. Thus, both the contentions fail. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred) only. B.K. Patra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed