R. L. Gupta ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act 1940 for filing of the award dated 17-8-1988 by Shri J. P. Singhal, Arbitrator alongwith depositions and documents and making the same a rule of the court. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner entered into a contract with respondent 1 for the work construction of flatted factories at Jhandewalan, New Delhi including development of site. After getting due formalities performed, an agreement bearing No. 10/ee/public Witness D-XII/80-81 was executed between the parties. The work was executed under the territorial jurisdiction of the Executive Engineer PWD Division No. XII, Delhi Administration, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. Certain disputes arose between the parties in respect of the above mentioned contract and after getting the work performed to their entire satisfaction and as per directions and specifications, the respondents did not make payment of the due amount. Therefore, there was no alternative for the petitioner but to invoke the arbitration clause 25 of the agreement. As per the said clause, the petitioner submitted disputes to the persona designaia i. e. the Chief Engineer, PWD, Delhi Administration Zone I, Curzon Road Baracks, New Delhi who appointed Sh. J. P. Singhal, as an arbitrator vide letter dated 31-3-1986. The arbitrator issued directions to the parties to submit the statement and counter statement of facts alongwith the documents upon which they relied. After perusing the pleadings, documents and hearing arguments the arbitrator published the award whereby he awarded a sum of Rs. 8,85,887. 89 P. from 31-3-1986 to the date of payment or decree of the court which ever is earlier. ( 3 ) THE arbitrator appears to have filed the award alongwith proceedings before 3-10-88 in the court. Counsel for the claimant accepted notice on the same date and, therefore, no other notice was issued to the claimant. He also did not file any objections against the award. Notice was issued to the respondent to file objections, if any, within the statutory period. After service objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act were filed on behalf of Union of India numbered as IA No. 1202/89. He also did not file any objections against the award. Notice was issued to the respondent to file objections, if any, within the statutory period. After service objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act were filed on behalf of Union of India numbered as IA No. 1202/89. It is alleged in the objections that the arbitrator while ignoring the material facts and evidence placed on record and contrary to the terms of the agreement between the parties made and published the award. The award is stated to be illegal, invalid and liable to be set aside The arbitrator was also alleged to have misconducted himself and the proceedings. Under the terms and conditions of the agreement and also under the terms of reference the arbitrator was required to give reasons for awarding or rejecting any claim, but he failed to record the reasons for awarding or rejecting any claim and as such committed legal misconduct The so called reasons as appended to the said award are, in fact, no reasons and are merely conclusions. Therefore, the award as such cannot be called a reasoned award indicating the thought process of the arbitrator. ( 4 ) THE finding of the arbitrator on claim No. 2 was stated to be erroneous on the face of it and contrary to the facts and material on record. The arbitrator awarded Rs. 10,019. 99 to the claimant on account of Mud Phuska. The claimant was asked to arrange crude oil before starting grouting of the tiles on 10-1-1984 and 17-1-84. These were presented as evidences vide RE-20 and RE-21 before the arbitrator who did not take cognizance of the same stating that these were in the initial stages of the work and no notice was served under clause 14 of the agreement. Similarly findings on claim No. 3 were alleged to be unjustified because the arbitrator wrongly observed that the agreement items were without any pre-qualifications i. e. indicating specific categorisation about the level for which the payment is to be made. The arbitrator concluded that this can be interpreted to be paid under the items of superstructure by having precedence over CPWD Specifications which classify these for foundation work. The award of Rs. 12,800 and Rs. 12,000 respectively given against these two items was, therefore, unjustified. ( 5 ) THE challange is also made to the award of Rs. The arbitrator concluded that this can be interpreted to be paid under the items of superstructure by having precedence over CPWD Specifications which classify these for foundation work. The award of Rs. 12,800 and Rs. 12,000 respectively given against these two items was, therefore, unjustified. ( 5 ) THE challange is also made to the award of Rs. 7,69,105 in respect of claim No. 6. Petitioner had claimed Rs. 54 lacs as damages suffered by him due to loss of profitability as a result of prolongation of contract arising out of breach of contract by the department. The arbitrator concluded that objector was in breach of the contract. This conclusion was stated to be incorrect and not based on facts and evidence of the case. The arbitrator is alleged to have failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances put forward by the respondent-objector, the lapses on the part of the claimant petitioner and arrived at a conclusion which was not based on facts and evidence, The arbitrator s conclusion regarding delay in issue of structural details of foundation and drawings was also alleged to be not based on facts because the foundation details and the architectural drawings were supplied well in time and it was the claimant/petitioner who delayed in starting the foundation works. Similarly late supply of cement by the respondent-objector and the conclusion of the arbitrator regarding breach of contract was alleged to be unfounded and not based on facts. While assessing the increase in the costs of work, the arbitrator compared the tendered rate for this agreement with the rate at which some work was awarded in DIZ area. Such direct comparison was stated to be technically incorrect as each work differs in its work contents, composition of various items and the issue rates of stipulated materials like cement and steel. Such analogy was, therefore, fundamentally wrong and the arbitrator s conclusion regarding general increase in the cost of works was, therefore, factually incorrect. In short the conclusion drawn by the arbitrator were assailed as incorrect, ( 6 ) THESE objections were countered on behalf of the claimant- petitioner rebutting the allegations made in the objection petition. Objections are also stated to be time barred and filed with an intention just to delay the settlement of the disputes having been resolved by the arbitrator after hearing both the parties. Objections are also stated to be time barred and filed with an intention just to delay the settlement of the disputes having been resolved by the arbitrator after hearing both the parties. The award was alleged to be a reasoned one giving the basis of coming to the conclusions in deciding the disputes by the arbitrator. The arbitrator, in fact, was alleged to be final arbiter in respect to the disputes between the parties and award was not open to challenge on the ground that arbitrator had reached a wrong conclusion or had failed to appreciate the facts. The award of arbitrator was alleged to be final and conclusive. Wrong or right decision was said to be binding on the parties and the court was not competent to re-examine and re-appraise the evidence considered by the arbitrator and sit in appeal over the conclusions of arbitrator. The arbitrator was alleged to have acted judiciously and observed all norms required for the arbitration. The objections raised in respect of various claims were also rebutted. The pleadings of the parties were incorporated in the following issues : 1. Whether the objections are barred by time ? 2. Whether the award or any part thereof is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the objection petition ?i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given my careful consideration to all the aspects. My findings on the above issues are as under:- ( 7 ) ISSUE No. 1-During the course of arguments no objection was raised regarding the objections having been barred by limitation. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. ( 8 ) ISSUE No. 2-Learned counsel for the respondent-objector mainly drew my attention to the settlement of claims 6 and 7 by the arbitrator. The date of commencement of work was 1-8-80 and the stipulated date of completion was 31-7-82. But theworks were actually completed on 15-3-1985. Therefore, it was argued that since the petitioner-claimant himself was guilty of not having completed the works within the stipulated period, he was not entitled to any loss or damages alleged to have been suffered by him on account of the non-completion of work in time. The arbitrator in this respect found that there were a number of hold ups in the execution of the work. The arbitrator in this respect found that there were a number of hold ups in the execution of the work. He also found that the claimant was ready and willing to execute the work but till November, 1980 end only four blocks were handed over, even as per objector, site for the last two blocks was handed over only on 25-2-1982 which was almost after 19 months of the commencement of the work and barely five months before the stipulated date of completion The arbitrator also found as a matter of fact that there were hindrances on the site of the work and clear site was not available for a long time. The respondent-objector was held to be responsible for delays and hold ups on account of decision and drawings required to be given by the respondent- objector. I have carefully gone through the reasons given by the arbitrator in the award under claim 6. It was laid down in the case of M/s. A. T. Brij Paul Singh and Bros. v. State of Gujarat,1 that wherein a works contract, the party entrusting the work commits breach of the contract, the contractor would be entitled to claim damages for loss of profit which he expected to earn by undertaking the works contract. What must be the measure of profit and what proof should be tendered to sustain the claim are different matters. But the claim under this head is certainly admissible. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-objector that no compensation could be awarded by the arbitrator in respect of any alleged damages or losses or profits seems to be completely met by the above cited authority of the Supreme Court. This court also in a judgment reported as Villayati Ram Mittal v. The Union of India and others,2 held that the measure of damages was the loss of profitability or added expenditure of the work carried out and completed by the builders. It upheld the claim of the contractor to recover damages for delay caused by the department. This court also in a judgment reported as Villayati Ram Mittal v. The Union of India and others,2 held that the measure of damages was the loss of profitability or added expenditure of the work carried out and completed by the builders. It upheld the claim of the contractor to recover damages for delay caused by the department. Therefore, the further arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent-objector that clause 10-C of the agreement between the parties did not contemplate the award of any such damages cannot be up-held, because clause 10-C presumes that the contract was completed during the agreed period of contract and was applicable only during the course of work within that period. ( 9 ) MOREOVER, it may be noted that an arbitrator is made a final arbiter of the disputes between the parties, and his award is not open to challenge on the ground that the arbitrator had reached a wrong conclusion or failed to appreciate certain facts. This was so held in the case of M/s Hindustan Tea Co. v. M/s. K. Shashikant and Co, and another. I am, therefore, of the view that an arbitrator is competent to award damages on account of loss of profits to a. contractor, if there is delay in performing its part of the contract by the department. The arbitrator so found and held in the award and, therefore, his award is not assailable on this ground. But there seems to be force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-objector that the arbitrator was not empowered to grant pendente lite and future interest as awarded by him under claim 7. It was held in the case of Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Galimala and others v. Abhaduta Jena1 that, "in the cases to which the 1978 Interest Act applies the award of interest prior to the proceeding is not open to question. In regard to pendente lite interest, that is, interest from the date of reference to the date of the award, the claimants would not be entitled to the same for the simple reason that the arbitrator is not a court within the meaning of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor were the references to arbitration made in the course of suits. In cases which arose before the commencement of the Interest Act, 1978, the claimants are not entitled to claim interest either before the commencement of the proceedings or during the pendency of the arbitration. The above authority, therefore, clearly, shows that the arbitrator is not competent to grant pendente lite and future interest. Therefore, this is an error apparent on the face of the award. Therefore, the grant of pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 10% per annum on Rs. 8,84,887. 89 from the date of invocation of the arbitration i. e. 31-3-86 till the date of the award is set aside. The conclusion, therefore, on this issue is that the award given by the arbitrator in this case except upon claim 7 is maintained. ( 10 ) RELIEF-IN view of what has been stated above, the objections are partly allowed in respect of the claim of interest awarded by the arbitrator. Otherwise award for grant of Rs. 8,85,887. 89 is made a rule of the court. A decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the award. The respondent-objector is granted three months time to pay this amount failing which it shall be liable to pay the said amount together with future interest at the rate of 10% per annum.