M. K. Chawla ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a limited company under the Companies Act having its registered office at Jangpura, New Delhi. The present petition under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act has been filed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the petitioner company. As per the averments the petitioner entered into a contract with respondent No. 1, the Director General of works, C. P. W. D. for the construction of Office building Phase-I, R. K. Puram, New Delhi; that subsequently a formal agreement was also executed which contained an arbitration clause for reference of disputes to arbitration in case of disputes arising out of or in connection with the said agreement: that after the completion of the contract in all respects and handing over the said building to respondent No. 1, the petitioner sent their bill for escalation on steel and cement, sales tax, shaft area claim etc. in accordance with the terms of the contract to respondent No. 1 for its payment; that the respondents however, refused to entertain the said claim of the petitioner on false and frivolous pleas; that the disputes and differences having arisen between the parties the same were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri S. C. Jain of Ministry of Works and Housing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi; that the parties put their claims and counter claims before the said arbitrator; after hearing the parties at length and considering the documents and oral submissions made, the said sole arbitrator made and signed his award on 23. 12. 1983 awarding a sum of Rs. 4,02,019. 12 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w. e. f. 7. 9. 1978 till the date of payment or decree of the Court which-ever is earlier, to the petitioner, vide his notice dated 23. 12. 1983 publishing his award to the parties by supplying a signed copy of the award. Hence the present petition praying for the filing of the award alongwith the arbitration proceedings and making the same rule of the court and passing of the decree in terms thereof. ( 2 ) AFTER the service of the notice the learned arbitrator filed the award and the proceedings initiated by him. Upon the receipt of the award notice was sent to the parties for filing their objections, if any, within the stipulated period. ( 2 ) AFTER the service of the notice the learned arbitrator filed the award and the proceedings initiated by him. Upon the receipt of the award notice was sent to the parties for filing their objections, if any, within the stipulated period. The Union of India filed the objections praying for the setting aside of the award. The only ground urged in the objection petition is that the award of interest by the arbitrator is beyond the scope of reference since the appointing authority namely. The Chief Engineer (NDZ), C. P. W. D. New Delhi did not refer the dispute relating to the interest and as such he has over-stepped his jurisdiction in awarding the interest from 7. 91978. As this objection was a legal one, the claimant has not cared to file the reply. Subsequently the respondent/union of India deposited a cheque for a sum of Rs. 4,02,019. 12 in Court in order to avoid any possibility of payment of future interest. ( 3 ) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and with their help gone through the records carefully. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that at the time of the reference of the disputes to the arbitrator, Shri Harish Chandra, Chief Engineer (NDZ), did not refer the dispute relating to the interest. Alongwith the reference order dated 8. 9. 1978 the list of the claims of the contractor was also sent to the sole arbitrator. In the said claims the contractor has not asked for the payment of interest for the delayed payment of his dues during the course of the completion of the contract. The learned arbitrator however, while announcing the award held the claimant entitled to the payment of interest @11% per annum w. e. f. 7. 9. 1978 on a sum of Rs. 4,02,019. 12 till the date of payment of decree of the Court whichever is earlier against the item No. 10 wherein the claimant had claimed interest @ 18% per annum from 1972 on the withheld amount of a period of 6 years and also future interest till realisation. The claimant was also awarded Rs. l. 000. 00 as cost against his claim of Rs. 10,000. 00. The claimant was also awarded Rs. l. 000. 00 as cost against his claim of Rs. 10,000. 00. ( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that no doubt at the time of making the reference of the contractor s claim the Chief Engineer did not specifically refer the dispute relating to the interest but as this formed part of the main contract the learned arbitrator cannot be said to have exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding interest. In this behalf he places reliance on clause 20 of lump Sum Tender for Works by which the present job was entrusted to the petitioner. This clause specifically lays down that in the case of delay in payment, interest on amount will be charged at 12% per annum, for every month or part thereof. The further contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the claim about the payment of interest was specifically made a part of his statement of claims before the learned arbitrator which was denied by the respondent/union of India. The learned arbitrator after going through the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record allowed the payment of interest @ 11 % per annum w. e. f. 7. 9. 1978 on a sum of Rs. 4,02,019. 12 till the date of payment or decree of the court whichever is earlier. Even otherwise accordin-g to the learned counsel for the claimant the arbitrator does not need specific reference for the payment of interest pendentelite as well as burdening the other party with cost as it forms part of his inherent jurisdiction to grant such a relief. In support of his submission the learned counsel places reliance on a judgment reported as Jiwani Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India1; wherein during the course of the Judgment on this aspect of the case it was observed that there is no bar for the arbitrator to grant interest pendentelite i. e. from the date of entering upon reference till the award is made, on the claim adjudicated by him in the reference. The learned counsel also relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in a case reported as State of Madhya Pradesh v. M/s. Saith and Skelton Pvt. Ltd. and others2; wherein it was observed that where all the disputes including a claim for payment of the amount with interest are referred to the arbitrator, the arbitrator can award interest pendentelite i. e. during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings . The learned counsel for the Union of India does not agree with any of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner aredistinguishable from the facts of the present case and particularly when there is no specific reference for the grant of interest to the learned arbitrator, there was no question of allowing the same in the award. ( 7 ) IN support of his submission the learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on a Judgment reported as Union of India v. Ram Dass Oil Mills3 In that case the Division Bench during the course of the Judgment on this aspect of the matter observed as under :- "section 34 of Civil Procedure Code does not apply ordinarily to arbitration, but if it was an implied term of the reference to arbitration in the suit that the arbitrator would decide the dispute according to law and would give such relief with regard to pendentelite interest as the Court would give if it decided the dispute, the power of the arbitrator in this respect is not fettered. Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code does not apply even in arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration Act because an arbitrator is not a Court with-in the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code, nor does it apply to arbitrators, and but for Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code even a court would not have the power to give interest after the Suit. Therefore, unless the question of interest is also referred to the arbitrator for decision; even under the Arbitration Act, the arbitrator cannot award any interest. " ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length. Therefore, unless the question of interest is also referred to the arbitrator for decision; even under the Arbitration Act, the arbitrator cannot award any interest. " ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length. I have carefully gone through the statement of claim, the counter of the Union of India as well as the various clauses of the lump sum tender for works and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 9 ) THE existence of clause 20 of the lump Sum Tender for Works is not dispute. Shri Harish Chandra, Chief Engineer (NDZ) while forwarding the claim of the contractor to the learned arbitrator mentioned only 9 disputes. The payment of interest was not a part of the said reference. However, when the learned arbitrator entered the reference, be directed the parties to file their statements of claim alongwith the documents. At that stage the contractor made out a case for the grant of various amounts forming part of his 11 claims. Claim No. 10 was in respect of payment of interest @ 18% since 1972 for the with holding of amounts; while filing the counter claim as well as controverting the claim of the contractor, the respondent under claim No. 10 only took up the objection that as there was no clause in the agreement for the payment of interest this claim is untenable and may be summarily rejected. The learned arbitrator however, on consideration of the material before him awarded payment of interest as stated earlier. At this stage the learned counsel for the Union of India cannot contend that the reference about the payment of interest was not before the learned arbitrator. No legal or factual mistake has crept in the award of the learned arbitrator by allowing the contractor the payment of interest. Admittedly the award is a non-speaking one and cannot be questioned. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner/contractor fairly and squarely apply to the facts of the present case while the Ram Das Oil Mills case (supra) was decided on its own facts. In the said case the question of the payment of interest was not before the arbitrator and as such he was justified not to have considered the said question. In the said case the question of the payment of interest was not before the arbitrator and as such he was justified not to have considered the said question. In the present case as observed earlier the payment of interest formed part of one of the claims before the learned arbitrator and rightly or wrongly the same having been allowed in the award, this court will have no jurisdiction to set aside the same. ( 10 ) IN view of the above observations the award of the learned arbitrator, Shri S. C. Jain dated 23. 12. 1983 is made a rule of the court. Decree in terms of the award be prepared accordingly.