D. P. Wadhwa ( 1 ) IN this petition filed under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act the petitioner who is the claimant, seeks to have the award dated 17th August, 1988 of the second respondent made a rule of the court and a decree in terms thereof be passed. ( 2 ) ON filing of this petition notice was issued to the arbitrator who filed his award and the proceedings. Thereafter, notice of filing of the award was given to the respondents. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) filed objections to the award, these are under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act and were registered as I. A. 2509/89. After the pleadings were complete, following issues were framed : 1. If the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the objection petition (I. A. 2509/89) of the respondent DDA ? 2. Relief. ( 3 ) PARTIES did not lead any evidence even by means of affidavits and agreed that the matter could be decided on the basis of arbitration award and the proceedings. I thereafter heard arguments. ( 4 ) DDA awarded a contract to the claimant for sinking of tubewell for water supply at Motia Khan. The estimated cost of the contract was Rs. 48,814. Tender of the claimant which was 39% over and above the estimated cost and amounting to Rs. 67,851 was accepted. The date of start of the work was 27th February, 1986 and the time in which the work was to be completed was one month, the date of completion being 26th March, 1986. The claimant, it appears, made two bores which were abandoned by the DDA as site was not suitable due to rocky state. While the boring was done at a third place the contract was rescinded by the DDA. Under Clause 3 of the General Conditions of Contract between the parties. ( 5 ) DISPUTES having arisen these were referred to the arbitration of the second respondent who was at the relevant time working as Additional Director General (Works) CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. The arbitrator held his proceedings and gave his award on 17th August, 1988. He awarded a sum of Rs. 51,691 to the claimant. He also awarded interest at the rate of 10% on the amount of Rs. The arbitrator held his proceedings and gave his award on 17th August, 1988. He awarded a sum of Rs. 51,691 to the claimant. He also awarded interest at the rate of 10% on the amount of Rs. 49,691 from the date of the award till payment or decree of the court whichever was earlier. The counter-claim of the respondent-DDA for Rs. 3,661 being the balance amount of security deposit stated to have been forfeited on rescission of the contract was rejected. The claimant had put in seven claims. Claims No. 3 and 5 were rejected and it may not, therefore, be necessary to refer to them. Other claims were as under: CLAIM No. 1 (a) Rs. 24,440 on account of work executed but not paid. This claim was bifurcated into three sub-claims (a) Rs. 5,375 towards boring of two bores measuring 21. 5 mts. at the rate of Rs. 250 per mtr. which was abandoned by the DDA. (b) Rs. 7,500 for boring upto 30 mtrs. at the rate of Rs. 250 per mtr. (c) Rs. 4608 for boring upto 4. 4 mtrs. at the rate of Rs. 320 per mtr. ( 6 ) THE arbitrator rejected sub-claims (b) and (c) and on sub-claim (a) awarded an amount of Rs. 7,471 (Rs. 5375+39%) and, therefore, held this claim to be justified. DDA said that since the work was not completed the claimant was not entitled to this amount. The arbitrator is right in awarding this amount. The claimant did work on the two bores and if the work was abandoned on account of land being not suitable due to rocky state, the claimant has to be paid for the services rendered under the contract. I do not agree with the submission of Ms. Salwan that sub-claim (a) of claim 1 is outside the contract. The objection of the DDA to the award of this claim is not valid. Claim No. 2 Claimant claimed Rs. 1,220 on account of refund of security deposit. ( 7 ) THE learned arbitrator allowed this claim. He held that the time for completion of the work was one month and that both the parties by their actions and conduct allowed the work to linger on for several months. Thus according to the arbitrator the time ceased to be of the essence of the contract and the rescission of the contract was, therefore, no justified. He held that the time for completion of the work was one month and that both the parties by their actions and conduct allowed the work to linger on for several months. Thus according to the arbitrator the time ceased to be of the essence of the contract and the rescission of the contract was, therefore, no justified. DDA therefore, could not forfeit the security amount of Rs. 1,220 and demand the balance amount of the security deposit of Rs. 3,661 by way of counter-claim Ms. Salwan learned counsel for the DDA referred to Clause-3 of General Conditions of Contract and said that the arbitrator was in error in holding that rescission of the contract was not justified and directing payment of the security deposit amount to the claimant. Under this Clause-3 the Engineer- in-Charge, without prejudice to other rights of the DDA under the contract, and where the date of completion of contract has or has not lapsed, by notice in writing absolutely determine the contract in any of the four cases specified in the clause. The first case is relevant in the present case and may be reproduced as under : " (I) If the contractor having been given by the Enginecr-in-Charge a notice in writing to rectify, reconstruct or replace any defective work or that the work is being performed in any inefficient or otherwise improper or unworkman like manner shall omit to comply with the requirements of such notice for a period of seven days thereafter or, if the contractor shall delay or suspend the execution of the work so that either in the judgment of the Engineer-in-Charge (which shall be final and binding), he will be unable to secure completion of the work by the date for completion or he has already failed to complete the work by that day. "then, when the contractor has thus made himself liable for action the Engineer-in-Charge has powers to determine or rescind the contract and upon such determination or rescission the security deposit of the contractor is liable to be forfeited and is absolutely at the disposal of the DDA. The notice in writing to the contractor of termination or rescission of the contract under the hand of the Engineer-in-Charge is to a conclusive evidence of such determination or rescission of the contract. The notice in writing to the contractor of termination or rescission of the contract under the hand of the Engineer-in-Charge is to a conclusive evidence of such determination or rescission of the contract. Two other courses are also open to the DDA in the case of determination of the contract wherein DDA can employ labour to complete the work etc. but again two other courses are not relevant here. Then, finally Clause-3 ends as under : "in the event of any one more of the above courses being adopted by the Engineer-in-Charge the contractor shall have no claim to compensation for any loss Sustained by him by reason of his having purchased or procured any materials or entered into any engagements or made any advances on account or with a view to the execution of work of the performance ofcontract. And in case action is taken under any of the provisions aforesaid, the contractor shall not be entitled to recover or be paid any sum for any work thereto for actually performed under this contract unless and until the Enyneer-in-Charge has certified in writing the performance of such work and the value payable in respect thereof and he shall only be entitled to be paid value so certified. " ( 8 ) IT may be noted that during the course of arbitration proceedings DDA has stated before the arbitrator in April and May, 1988 that after rescission of the contract in question fresh tender had not been invited so far. ( 9 ) PARTIES had exchanged correspondence before reference was made to arbitrator and this was evidence on record of the arbitration proceedings, From the evidence and the interpretation placed by the arbitrator on Clause 3 aforesaid, it cannot be said that the arbitrator was wrong in his conclusion that time in the present case ceased to be the essence of the contract and the DDA was not justified in rescinding the contract. After the fixing of the one month period in the first instance, there is nothing on record to show that DDA extended the time for any particular period to complete the work. It lingered as the arbitrator has rightly pointed out. Once the arbitrator came to the conclusion that rescission of the contract was not legal, the security deposit lying with the DDA had to be refunded to the contractor- claimant. It lingered as the arbitrator has rightly pointed out. Once the arbitrator came to the conclusion that rescission of the contract was not legal, the security deposit lying with the DDA had to be refunded to the contractor- claimant. As has been repeatedly said that this court is not sitting in appeal and cannot itself weigh, the pros and cons of the reasoning given by the arbitrator. The objection of the DDA against claim No. 2 is rejected, Claim No. 4 Claimant claimed Rs. 1,38,000 being the cost of material, T and P and machinery wrongfully confiscated by the DDA hire charges of the machinery at the rate of Rs. 1000 per day from the date of confiscation till the date of release. ( 10 ) IN the statement of claim the claimant restricted his claim to Rs. 57,000 towards hire charges of the boring equipments etc. for the period from 25th August, 1986 (date of rescission) to 21st October, 1986 (date of release) at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per day. The arbitrator noted that equipments were kept back at the site when the contract was rescinded and were not allowed to be taken away by the claimant and were ultimately released on 21st October, 1986. The arbitrator also noted that the final measurements by the DDA were recorded on llth September, 1986. He, therefore, allowed the claim of the claimant for the period from llth September, 1986 to 21st October, 1986 for 41 days thus awarding a sum of Rs 41,000 to the claimant. ( 11 ) AGAIN, I am unable to find fault with the award on this claim. The arbitrator, it appears, has taken into consideration all the relevant factors to awarding this amount to the claimant. There was no justification for confiscating the valuable equipments of the claimant by the DDA for such a long period. Objection of the DDA to the award of this claim is also rejected. ( 12 ) CLAIMS 6 and 7 Under these claims the arbitrator has awarded interest as mentioned above and also cost amounting to Rs. 2,000 in favour of the claimant, It cannot be disputed that award of interest is not legal and it has, therefore, to be set aside. The award has to be modified to that extent. ( 12 ) CLAIMS 6 and 7 Under these claims the arbitrator has awarded interest as mentioned above and also cost amounting to Rs. 2,000 in favour of the claimant, It cannot be disputed that award of interest is not legal and it has, therefore, to be set aside. The award has to be modified to that extent. But, then in a recent decision the Supreme Court has held that court has power to award interest from the date of the award. The arbitrator awarded interest at the rate of 10% p. a. which rate I find quite reasonable. Since, deletion of award of interest by the arbitrator and this court awarding interest on the same very basis, the result would be same, I would, therefore, allow the award of interest to stand. ( 13 ) IT was also argued by Ms. Salwan that the amount of the award is higher than the amount of the contract which was not completed by the claimant. That may be so, but it must not be forgotten that main chunk of the award is towards damages for depriving the claimant from his boring material which action of DDA was held not to be justified. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, the objection by the DDA to the award are rejected. I. A. 2509/89 is dismissed. The award dated 17th August, 1988 is made rule of the court and a decree in terms thereof is passed. The claimant will be entitled to further interest on the amount of Rs. 49,691 at the rate of 10% p. a. from the date of decree till payment. In case, however, the payment under the decree is made within two months, this future interest will not be payable.