JUDGMENT : A.N. Varma, J. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Saharanpur dated 31st January, 1978 rejecting the objections filed by the Appellant against an award and making the award a rule of the court. 2. These are the relevant facts. The Appellant and the Respondent entered into a contract of loading and unloading or transportation of Sugarcane from the Sugarcane centre to the Defendants mills. In the contract there was a clause that every dispute would be referred to the Chairman of the Respondent corporation whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties. It appears that a dispute arose between the parties regarding payment. The Plaintiff moved an application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act for filing of the arbitration agreement and for reference of the dispute to an Arbitrator. In the application, it was asserted that the named Arbitrator being the Chairman of the Respondent corporation would naturally be biased and hence the court should itself appoint another Arbitrator. The application was contested by the Respondent, who stated that the dispute should be referred if at all to the Chairman of the Respondent-corporation who was named by the parties in the agreement. The court considered the rival contentions of the parties and allowed the application of the Appellant u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act and referred the dispute to the Chairman of the Respondent-corporation. The arbitrator was directed to proceed with the adjudication of the dispute in accordance with law and submit the award within three months. 3. Before the Arbitrator the parties filed their respective claims. The Arbitrator considered the entire material and by an award dated 31st December, 1973 held that the Appellant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,779.98 with interest calculated at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award to the realisation thereof to the Respondent-corporation. 4. When the award was filed for being made a rule of the court, the Appellant filed an objection u/s 30 of the Arbitration Act, the court considered the objection of the Appellant and rejected the same by the aforesaid order by which after rejecting the objection the court directed that a decree shall be prepared in accordance with the award. 5. The Plaintiff-Appellant aggrieved by that order has filed this appeal. 6. 5. The Plaintiff-Appellant aggrieved by that order has filed this appeal. 6. For the Appellant Sri S.P. Gupta, learned Counsel submitted two points for the consideration of this Court; first that the arbitrator was the chairman of the Respondent-corporation and in that capacity he must have had occasion to pass the accounts on the basis of which he has held that the Appellant is liable to pay Rs.15,779.98 as per accounts of the Respondent. He was hence clearly biased and the award is liable to be set aside on that account alone; secondly, the dispute referred to the Arbitrator arose only out of the claim of the Appellant. The counter claim which the Respondent filed before the Arbitrator could not legally authorise the Arbitrator to award any amount against the Appellant as the same would be deemed to be beyond the scope of reference. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find no merit in either of these two contentions. So far as the first contention is concerned a complete answer is provided by the Explanation which has been inserted by U.P. Act. No. 57 of 1976 in Section 29(4) of the Arbitration Act, which reads as follows; Where the arbitration agreement provides for reference to a person by name or designation, the fact that the arbitrator or the umpire so named or designated, is an employee of or is otherwise connected with, one of the parties, shall not by itself, be deemed to be a reason for not referring the matter to the arbitrator or the umpire so named or designated. The objection, therefore, that the Arbitrator who was the chairman of the Respondent-corporation must be taken to be biased against the Appellant, hence cannot be accepted. Learned Counsel, however, submitted that the Explanation does not take the power of the court to entertain an objection as regards bias in the Arbitrator completely. It was submitted that if bias can be inferred from other circumstances, the objection can be sustained. I find no merit in this contention inasmuch as nothing has been shown which might indicate that the named Arbitrator was biased on any other ground. It was submitted that if bias can be inferred from other circumstances, the objection can be sustained. I find no merit in this contention inasmuch as nothing has been shown which might indicate that the named Arbitrator was biased on any other ground. The mere fact that as chairman the Arbitrator may have been associated with the passing of the accounts in which there is an entry of Rs.15,779.98 debited against the Appellant, cannot lead to the conclusion that in deciding the dispute the Arbitrator was biased. To sustain such an objection would be to render the Explanation added by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 completely nugatory. 8. The second contention is equally devoid of any merit. The counter claim which the Respondent filed before the Arbitrator was fully covered by the dispute which was referred by the court while allowing the application of the' Appellant u/s 20 of the Act. It arose directly out of the Plaintiff's own application u/s 20 as well as from the objection filed by the Respondent against the said application. In para 10 of the application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act, the Appellant clearly stated that the Respondent had wrongly debited a sum of Rs.15,779.98 against the Appellant in its accounts. This plea of the Appellant was disputed by the Respondent in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the objections filed by the Appellant. In these paragraphs the plea taken by the Respondent was that the Appellant was liable for the shortages and consequently the sum of Rs.15,779.98 claimed by the Respondent on account of shortages was clearly claimable by it. From a perusal of the application of the Appellant as well as the objection filed by the Respondent, it is thus apparent that there was a clear dispute between the parties as regards whether or not the Respondent was entitled to debit the aforesaid amount against the Appellant in its accounts. The counter claim filed by the Respondent was hence a mere reiteration of the stand which it had taken earlier. The claim of Rs. 15,779.98 hence arose directly from the dispute which was referred by the court u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act. 9. I therefore, do not agree with the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the sum of Rs.15,779.98 awarded against the Appellant was outside the scope of reference of the dispute. The claim of Rs. 15,779.98 hence arose directly from the dispute which was referred by the court u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act. 9. I therefore, do not agree with the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the sum of Rs.15,779.98 awarded against the Appellant was outside the scope of reference of the dispute. As demonstrated above, the amount fell squarely within the ambit of the dispute which was referred. I also do not agree with the learned Counsel that it was only the claim of the Appellant which was before the Arbitrator. What was before the Arbitrator was the dispute which included a claim by the Respondent for the sum of Rs.15,779.98 as payable by the Appellant. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant is, however, right in contending that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award any interest from the date of the award. The Arbitrator has granted interest to the Respondent by way of equity and justice. The Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to grant any interest by way of equity or justice. Not being a Court of equity or justice the Arbitrator could not validly award interest from the date of the award. This part of the award is however severable from the remaining part. 11. In the result the appeal succeeds in part. The judgment and order passed by the court below Insofar as it directs that the entire award be made a rule of the court, are set aside. The award shall be set aside only insofar as in directs payment of interest from the date of the passing of the award. The rest of the award is affirmed. Insofar as the award directs payment of Interest, the objection of the Appellant succeeds. The rest of the objection is dismissed. A decree shall now be prepared in accordance with law treating the same as awarding a sum of Rs.15,779.98 to the Respondent. The Respondent shall, however, be entitled to interest calculated at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the decree passed by the court below. A modified decree shall, therefore, be prepared in terms of this judgment. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs of the appeal.