S. N. Sapra ( 1 ) M. A. Construction Company, the present petitioner, was awarded by Delhi Development Authority, respondent No. 1, the work I for construction of 1644 Janta tenements at Paschimpuri SH : providing flushing system for 664 (S/s) Janta tenements at Paschimpuri, on the terms and conditions, as contained in tender forms, letter of acceptance and contract dated November 12, 1975. A formal deed of agreement was also entered into between petitioner and respondent No. 1, on November 12, 1975. ( 2 ) UNDER the agreement, work was to be completed by February 21, 1976. However, the work could not be completed, even within a period of 2 years, from the date of commencement of the agreement. Vide letter dated October 21, 1978, respondent No. 1 rescinded the contract under clause 3. ( 3 ) VARIOUS disputes arose between the parties, under the agreement, which provided for settlement by arbitration, unders clause 25. Vide his letter dated October 12, 1984, the Engineer Member of Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi, appointed Shri Banarsi Dass, (respondent No. 2) Supdt. Engineer (Arbitration), D. D. A. , as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties. The arbitrator entered upon reference, on October 29, 1984. ( 4 ) PETITIONER and respondent No. 1 filed their statement of claims and counter claims respectively, before the arbitrator. ( 5 ) PETITIONER made the following claims : 1. For a sum of Rs. 19,636 on account of refund of security deposit. 2. For a sum of Rs. 1580. 02 on account of further payment against agreement item No. 1. 3. For a sum of Rs. 395. 01 on account of further payment against agreement item No. 2. 4. For a sum of Rs. 2756. 90 on account of payment against agreement item No. 3 to the extent of 220 numbers at agreement rate. 5. For a sum of Rs. 276. 50 on account of further payment against agreement item No. 5. 6. For a sum of Rs. 867. 77 on account of further payment against agreement item No. 6. 7. For a sum of Rs. 3,756. 00 on account of further payment against agreement item No. 7. 8. For a sum of Rs. 53. 84 on account of further payment against agreement item No. 13. 9. For a sum of Rs. 1,060. For a sum of Rs. 867. 77 on account of further payment against agreement item No. 6. 7. For a sum of Rs. 3,756. 00 on account of further payment against agreement item No. 7. 8. For a sum of Rs. 53. 84 on account of further payment against agreement item No. 13. 9. For a sum of Rs. 1,060. 08 on account of further payment against extra item of cutting holes upto 30 cms. x 30 cm. 10. For a sum of Rs. l577. 50 on account of further payment against substituted item of providing and fixing RS or CI brakets to the extent of 631 Nos. @ Rs. 5. 50 each against which. a part rate of Rs. 3 was allowed in the last running bill. 11. For a sum of Rs. 26,312. 70 on account of further payment against substituted item of RCC tanks without fitting to the extent of 631 Nos. @ Rs. 236. 70 each (DSR rates plus contractor s enhancement ). A part rate of Rs. 195 was allowed in the list running bill and as such the balance rate of Rs. 41. 70 each is being claimed now. 12. For a sum of Rs. 318. 36 on account of execution of extra item of cutting holes upto 15 cms. xl5 cms. in RCC roof including making good the same. 13. For a sum of Rs. 720 on account of making connection PVC pipe line with CI extension main including providing and fixing necessary Ts and elbows complete 72 numbers @ Rs: 10 each total Rs. 720. 14. For a sum of Rs. 10,000 approximately under clause 10 (c) on account of increase in labour rates w. e. f. 1st April, 1976. 15. For a sum of Rs. 10,000 on account of fittings for RCC tanks provided at site stored but not fixed in position as well as other fittings which are taken over by the department at the time of wrongful rescission of the contract. 16. For a sum of Rs. 10,000 on account of infructuous expenditure and damages sustained by them due to various breaches committed by the respondents. 17. For pendente lite interest. ( 6 ) THE counter claims of respondent- No. 1 were as under: 1. For a sum of Rs. 92,857. 16. For a sum of Rs. 10,000 on account of infructuous expenditure and damages sustained by them due to various breaches committed by the respondents. 17. For pendente lite interest. ( 6 ) THE counter claims of respondent- No. 1 were as under: 1. For a sum of Rs. 92,857. 83 on account of additional expenditure incurred "for getting the balance work executed at, the risk and cost of the claimants. 2. For a sum of Rs. 2,680. 97 on account of rectification of defects in the work executed by the claimants. 3. For a sum of Rs. 6,988. 20 on account of single and penal recovery of cement and steel under clause 42 of the agreement. 4. For pre-suit and pendente lite interest w. e. f. 17. 12. 1978 the date of taking measurement of the rescinded work. 5. For a sum of Rs. 909 on account of compensation for non returning of cement bags under clause 10e of the agreement. ( 7 ) THE arbitrator made and published his award on May 2, 1985. By his award, the arbitrator, either fully or partly allowed claims No. 1 to 11 and 15 of petitioner. Claims No. 13 to 16 were disallowed. ( 8 ) WITH regard to claim No. 17, a claim for pendente lite interest, the arbitrator awarded that, if the amount was not paid within a period of 90 days, then respondent would pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, from the date of award, till the date of decree or payment, whichever was earlier. ( 9 ) IN his award, the arbitrator disallowed counter claims No. 1,2, 4 and 5. Counter claim No. 3 was partly allowed. ( 10 ) PETITIONER accepted the award and moved a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, thereby praying that award be filed and same be made a Rule of the Court. ( 11 ) AFTER filing of the award in Court, respondent No. 1 filed objections, under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration At, 1940, against the award. ( 12 ) IN short, respondent No. 1 has assailed the award of the arbitrator in respect of claim 1, 11 and 17 of the petitioner. It has also challenged the award in respect of the counter claims No. 1, 2 and 4. ( 12 ) IN short, respondent No. 1 has assailed the award of the arbitrator in respect of claim 1, 11 and 17 of the petitioner. It has also challenged the award in respect of the counter claims No. 1, 2 and 4. ( 13 ) IN the objections, respondent No. 1 has alleged that petitioner had failed to complete the work on time, and in fact, stopped the working after January 7, 1978. In spite of various show cause notices, issued by the concerned officer of respondent No. 1, petitioner failed to resume the work. Under these circumstances, respondent No. 1 was fully justified in rescinding the contract. Respondent No. 1 also became entitled to forfeit the security deposit, under clause 3 of the Agreement. ( 14 ) IT is further alleged that the arbitrator misconducted himself, in giving award, based on D. S. R. 74 item. In fact, the analysis for the items, submitted by respondent No. 1 under clause 12 (ii), was to be taken into consideration by the arbitrator. ( 15 ) IN his reply, the petitioner controverted the allegations, as made by respondent No. 1. ( 16 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds, mentioned in the objection petition ? 2. Relief. ( 17 ) WITH agreement of the parties, evidence has been led by way of affidavits. ( 18 ) IN the first place, Mr. Harish Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, has urged that under the agreement, arbitrator was required to give reasons for his findings. The arbitrator has not given reasons in the award, but has merely given his conclusion and verdict. The arbitrator has failed to state, as to how he has reached to the conclusions, under various claims, which have been awarded by him in favour of the petitioner and in respect of the counter claims, which have been negatived. There is no material on the record to support the verdict of the arbitrator. ( 19 ) MR. Malhotra has further contended that the time was of the essence of the contract and petitioner failed to complete the work, within the stipulated period. In spite of various show cause notices, the petitioner failed to resume the work. There is no material on the record to support the verdict of the arbitrator. ( 19 ) MR. Malhotra has further contended that the time was of the essence of the contract and petitioner failed to complete the work, within the stipulated period. In spite of various show cause notices, the petitioner failed to resume the work. As the work was not completed respondent No. 1 incurred additional expenditure, for getting the balance work executed at the risk and cost of petitioner. He has invited attention of this Court to the various letters, which are Exts. R. 1, R. 2, R. 4, R. 5, R. 5a, R. 12, R. 13, R. 14, R. 15, R. 17, R. 18, R. 19, R. 20 and the notice dated October 21, 1978, which is Ext. R. 23. ( 20 ) HE has placed reliance upon the judgments in M/s Hind Construction Contractors v. State of Maharashtra1 and College of Vocational Studies v. S. S. Jaitley, AIR 1987 Delhi 34. ( 21 ) IN the second place, Mr. Malhotra has contended that the arbitrator has mis-conducted himself, in awarding a sum of Rs. 26,312. 70 against claim No. 11, as the same is contrary to facts and law of the case. The arbitrator has wrongly based his finding on D. S. R. item, because D. S. R. item provides for P/f. R. C. C. tanks as per the H. I, design, which had not been provided by the Contractor. The analysis for this item, submitted by respondent No. 1, under clause 12 (ii), was to be taken into consideration, for deciding this claim. The item A. C. tanks was substituted with R. C. C. tanks, upon the request of petitioner and after he had given an undertaking that there would be no extra cost and liability to the department. ( 22 ) ACCORDING to him, the arbitrator has wrongly worked out the rates, in respect of this claim, under clause 12 (iii) of the agreement. Thus, there is an error, apparent on the face of the award. ( 23 ) THE scope and extent of examination, by the Court, of the award made by an arbitrator, has been laid down in various decisions. Thus, there is an error, apparent on the face of the award. ( 23 ) THE scope and extent of examination, by the Court, of the award made by an arbitrator, has been laid down in various decisions. As held, by the Division Bench of this Court in College of Vocational Studies, (supra), there are limits for judicial reviewability and the Courts exercise limited jurisdiction in the proceedings, for setting aside an award. The Courts do not exercise appellate jurisdiction over the verdict of an arbitrator and, as such, cannot go into the merits of the case, nor the Courts can re-appraise and re-examine the evidence, led before the arbitrator. The Courts, also can not look into the insufficiency of the evidence, led before the arbitrator. ( 24 ) WHERE, under an agreement, the arbitrator is required to give reasons for his award, he is not under obligation to give a detailed judgment or detailed reasons. By reason, it means, that the award should be speaking award. In such cases, what is expected from the arbitrator is, that he should indicate his mind, whereby it can be ascertained, as to how he has arrived at a particular conclusion. In case of reasoned award, the arbitrator is required to indicate the trend of his thought process, but not his mental meanderings. When the finding of the arbitrator is based on no evidence, then certainly, the Court can go into such finding and set aside the same, as the award being perverse one. In other words, the Court can set aside the award, only if it is apparent on the face of the award, that there is no evidence to support the conclusions, or if the award is based upon any legal 1. AIR 1979, Supreme Court, 720. 2. AIR 1987, Delhi, 34. proposition, which is erroneous. The arbitrator is entitled to decide rightly or wrongly, but if an error of law appears on the face of the award, then the Court can interfere into the same. ( 25 ) HOWEVER, it is not for the court to see the reasonableness of the reasons, given by the arbitrator or insufficiency of the reasons. Sufficiency of the reasons depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Reasons are the links on the material, documentary or oral evidence, adduced before the arbitrator on which certain inferences are drawn and conclusions are made. Sufficiency of the reasons depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Reasons are the links on the material, documentary or oral evidence, adduced before the arbitrator on which certain inferences are drawn and conclusions are made. There must be some rational nexus between the two indicated in the award. ( 26 ) AS held by Supreme Court in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. , and another,3 the award of the arbitrator, should be read reasonably as a whole to find out the implication and the meaning thereof. Short intelligible indications of the grounds should be discernible to find out the mind of the arbitrator for his action, even if it be enjoined that in all cases of award by arbitrator reasons have to be stated. Reasons should not only be intelligible, but should also deal either expressly or impliedly with the substantial points, that had been raised. ( 27 ) THE first question, that arises for consideration, is whether time was of the essence of the contract, that was executed between the parties. It is not in dispute that the work was not completed, not only within the stipulated period, but upto October 21, 1978, when the contract was rescinded. ( 28 ) IN M/s. Hind Construction Contractors (supra), their lordships of the Supreme Court, were also considering a contract for the construction of an aqueduct, which stipulated almost similar condition to that of the agreement in question. It was held that whether or not time was of the essence of the contract, would essentially be a question of the intention of the parties, to be gathered from the terms of the contract. Even, where, the parties have expressly that provided that the time is of the essence of the contract, such a stipulation would have to be read, along with other provisions of the contract, and such other provisions may, on construction of the contract, exclude the inference that the completion of the work by a particular date was intended to be fundamental, for instance, if the contract was to include clauses, providing for extension of time in certain contingencies or for payment of fine or penalty for every day or week the work undertaken remained unfinished, of the expiry of time, provided in the contract. ( 29 ) IN the present case, no doubt, a definite period was expressly provided in the contract between the parties, for completion of the work. But, whether the time was of the essence of the contract or not, the same is the question of the intention of the parties, to be gathered from reading the other terms, contained in the agreement. Clause 2 of the agreement, provides for payment of compensation by Contractor, in the event of his failing to comply with the condition, regarding the execution of the work. Clause 5 provides for extension of the time for completion of work. ( 30 ) THESE provisions, to my mind, exclude the inference that time 3. AIR 1989, Supreme Court 873. was intended to be essence of the contract by the parties. Moreover, the present case, after the expiry of the stipulated period, the Contractor did execute some work and from time to time was further asked to resume the work. This also amounted to waiver. Thus, I am of the view that the time was not essence of the contract. ( 31 ) NOW, it is to be seen, whether the arbitrator has given reasons for his findings or not. ( 32 ) IN his award, the arbitrator has allowed claim No. 1 for Rs. 19,634. This claim was made by the petitioner, on account of refund of security deposit. This amount was not refunded because, the contract was rescinded by respondent No. 1. For allowing this claim, the arbitrator has given detailed reasons and held that the time was not essence of the contract, and the rescission of the contract was neither legally tenable, not justifiable on merits. In fact, the arbitrator has observed that respondent No. 1 failed to give decision in terms of the agreement, so as to enable the contractor to complete the work. Thus, there is no force in the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that there are no reasons. ( 33 ) WITH regard to claim No. 11, arbitrator has held that the undertaking, could not be considered as part of agreement, and the contractor was thus entitled for the balance payment for the quantities measured and paid upto 6th running account bill and after working out the rate under Clause 12 (iii), i. e. , Rs. 236. 70 each. 236. 70 each. Arbitrator has given sufficient reason and I do not find any misconduct on the part of the arbitrator in allowing the rate under Clause 12 (iii) of the contract. ( 34 ) IN the next place, Mr. Malhotra has contended that in awarding the future interest, at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, from the date of award, till the date of decree or payment, against claim No. 17, the arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction. The arbitrator acted without jurisdiction in awarding the interest, as the claim No. 17 was for pendents lite interest. ( 35 ) THIS proposition of law stands concluded, by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra), whereby it was held : "having regard to the position in law emerging from the decision of this court in Executive Engineer (Irrigation) Balimela (supra) and Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we would modify the grant of interest in this case. The arbitrator has directed interest to be paid at 17% per annum from 6-8-1981 upto the date of decree, viz. , 17-6-1986. Since in this case, the reference to arbitration was made after the commencement of the (Interest Act, 1978), the arbitrator under Section 3 (l) (a) of the said Act was entitled to award interest from 6-8-1981 till 21-8-1984 in view of this court s decision in Abhaduta Jena s case (supra ). In the light of the same decision, he could not have awarded interest for the period from 22 8-1984 till the date of the publication of the award, viz. , 19-7-1985. So far as interest for the period from the date of the award (19-7-1985) till the date of the decree is concerned, the question was not specifically considered in Abhaduta Jena s case (supra) but special leave had been refused against the order in so far as it allowed interest for this period. We think interest should be allowed for this period, on the principle that this court can, once proceedings under Sections 15 to 17 are initiated, grant interest pending the litigation before it, i. e. , from the date of the award to the date of the decree. We think interest should be allowed for this period, on the principle that this court can, once proceedings under Sections 15 to 17 are initiated, grant interest pending the litigation before it, i. e. , from the date of the award to the date of the decree. It may be doubtful whether this can be done in cases arising before the Interest Act, 1978 in view of the restricted scope of Section 29 of the Arbitration Act. But there can be on doubt about the court s power to grant this interest in cases governed by the Interest Act, 1978 as Section 3 (l) (a) which was applied by Abhaduta Jena to arbitrators will equally apply to enable this court to do this in these proceedings. " ( 36 ) IN the present case no pendente lite interest, from the date of reference, till the date of award was awarded by the arbitrator. The arbitrator has, however, awarded the interest that in case, no payment was made within the period of 90 days, then respondent No. 1 would pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, from the date of award, till the date of decree of payment, whichever was earlier. Following the dictum of the Supreme Court the aforesaid case, I exercise my power under Section 3 (l) (a) of the Interest Act, 1978, read with Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and I direct that the above principal amount shall carry interest at the same rate, from the date of award till the date of actual payment. ( 37 ) THE arbitrator has held that counter claims Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 of respondent No. 1 were not justified. The counter claim No. 1, was on account of additional expenditure, of the work, got executed by the department at the risk and cost of petitioner. As the arbitrator held that the rescission of the contract was not justified, while dealing with claim No. 1 of the petitioner, so, counter claim No. 1 was rightly rejected by the arbitrator. With regard to the other counter claims, the arbitrator has given reasons, while rejecting the claims. I do not find any misconduct on the part of the arbitrator or any error, apparent on the face of the award. ( 38 ) THE arbitrator has given sufficient reasons in his award. With regard to the other counter claims, the arbitrator has given reasons, while rejecting the claims. I do not find any misconduct on the part of the arbitrator or any error, apparent on the face of the award. ( 38 ) THE arbitrator has given sufficient reasons in his award. ( 39 ) UNDER the facts and circumstances of the case, the objections filed by respondent No. 1, are hereby dismissed. The award is made a Rule of the court and decree, in terms of the award, is passed. The award shall form part of the decree.