Mahinder Narain ( 1 ) BY this order I propose of objections of the Delhi Development Authority, to an award dated 17-7-1987. ( 2 ) TIME was taken by the Delhi Development Authority for filing affidavit evidence. No affidavit evidence has been filed. It is stated by counsel that she wishes to rely upon the record of the case before the Arbitrator, and the terms of the agreement between the parties. ( 3 ) THE objections in this petition relate to claims No. 1, 5, 9 and 10. Claim No. 1 which was raised by the contractor/petitioner, before the Arbitrator, related to making of grooves in cement plaster surface. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that these grooves have to be made before plastering. Making of grooves before plastering is impossible, as any plaster which is applied on the groove, will cover it, and it will eliminate the grooves. All the grooves on plastered surface have to be made when the plastered surface is wet. Distinct and separate activity, has to be carried out by use of implements in the shape of wooden or iron and steel battens to make the grooves. This claim has been found to be justified by the Arbitrator. 1 find no substance in the contention of the respondent that the grooves have to be made before plastering was done, as this is a practical impossibility. The objection of the respondent that this relates to "drip course", has no foundation or basis as grooves are to be put on plastered surface. This objection of the Delhi Development Authority has no merit, and the award of the Arbitrator is sustained. ( 4 ) OTHER objections of the Delhi Development Authority relate to claim No. 5, wherein the petitioner has made a claim for hire charges for idle centring and shuttering. " The claim on this account is Rs. 1 2 lacs. The claim on account of prolongation of the contract due to failure and lapses on the part of the department is Rs. 1 2 lacs, and claim No. 10 for items exceeding the deviation limit is Rs. 1 4 lacs. All these three claims have been considered together by the Arbitrator. 1 2 lacs. The claim on account of prolongation of the contract due to failure and lapses on the part of the department is Rs. 1 2 lacs, and claim No. 10 for items exceeding the deviation limit is Rs. 1 4 lacs. All these three claims have been considered together by the Arbitrator. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the Delhi Development Authority says that all these claims are an after thought, that all these matters should have been raised during the time when the work was being carried out. In addition, it is stated that when the extension of time was granted by the respondent, the failures and lapses of the respondent were considered, and extension of time granted. It is also stated by the respondent that the basis of claim raised thereafter against the respondent on account of such prolongation, is eliminated by granting extension of time. I think there is no substance in these contentions. The Delhi Development Authority cannot be a judge of its own cause, and in any case, mere act of granting extension of time, would not eliminate a claim which had to be looked into and adjudicated upon and decided, as to whether any extra cost and expenditure have been incurred in terms of the contract. The Arbitrator, admittedly a technical person, has considered the claims which were made, and on the material placed before him has come to the conclusion that there is justification for allowing the total amount of Rs. 1,25,578 against these three claims. There is no substance in the legal contention raised before me, and I hold the award on account of these claims is sustained, ( 6 ) BY virtue of the award, the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 28-3-85 to 17-7-87, on the awarded amount. The Arbitrator further directed that if the payment of the awarded amount along with interest as above, is not made within 90 days from the date of award, the claimant shall also be paid interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment. The petitioner relied upon Clause 30 of the agreement between the parties for justification of its claim of interest. ( 7 ) THE amount awarded has admittedly not been paid by the respondent to the claimant. The petitioner relied upon Clause 30 of the agreement between the parties for justification of its claim of interest. ( 7 ) THE amount awarded has admittedly not been paid by the respondent to the claimant. There is no objection raised in the objections of the Delhi Development Authority regarding award of interest. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest for the time spent in these proceedings. The interest pendente life in this court, shall be paid to the claimant at the rate of 12% per annum from 18-7-1987 till the date of payment. ( 8 ) THE award dated 17-7-1987 is made rule of the court. A decree be drawn in terms of the award, and the award shall form part of the decree. If the payment is made within two months from today, no interest will be charged from today till the date of the payment.