Judgment :- O.P.No.290 of 1982 was filed by the arbitrator Mr.K.E.Varadhan, under Sec. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act to receive the award passed by him in A.R.C.No.3 of 1979, dated 10. 1982 and for issue of notice of the filing of the said award to the respondents. On 110. 1982-K.Shanmugham, J. (as he then was) directed the office to receive the award of the arbitrator and to issue notice to the respondents. The notice of filing of the said award was received by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 11. 1982. Thereafter the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board filed O.P.No.157 of 1983 to set aside the award dated 10. 1982 in so far as it is against the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 2.. O.P.No.142 of 1984 was filed by the South Madras Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., Tiru-chirappalli by its accredited representative to set aside the award dated 10. 1982 in regard to the points raised by them in O.P.No.142 of 1984 and by G.O.Ms.No.392, P.W.D., dated 6th March, 1979. The Government of Tamil Nadu constituted Mr.K.E.Varadhan, District and Sessions Judges as whole-time arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the South Madras Electric Supply Corporation Limited (hereinafter called as ex-licensee) and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Consequent upon the acquisition of Tiruchirappalli Srirangam Electrical undertaking and the vesting thereof, in the Government, on the 1st December, 1973. Following such physical takeover, the Government by notification G.O.Ms.No.167, P.W.D., dated 31st January, 1974, ordered the transfer of the acquired undertaking to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. As enjoined by Sec.7 of the Act, the share-holders of the South Madras Electric Supply Corporation Limited/claimant appointed Mr.H.K.Ramasamy (since substituted by Mr.Pad-manabhan) as the accredited representative and intimated the said fact to the Chief Electrical Inspector who had been appointed by the State, as the Acquisition Officer, under the vesting order. Availing the option granted to him, under the provisions of Sec.8 of the Act, the accredited representative adopted basis A and selected the five account years from 1968-69 to 1972-73, for the computation of the ‘amount’, payable to him under Sec.5(1) of the Act and intimated the said facts to the State Government. The ex-licensee also made a claim before the State Government under Ex.A-1, dated 14. The ex-licensee also made a claim before the State Government under Ex.A-1, dated 14. 1976, for the payment of the gross amount of Rs.2,47,81,740 as against the alleged estimated value of the assets at more than 9 crores and also forwarded detailed work sheets under Ex.A-2 in that regard. After prolonged negotiations with the accredited representative, which failed to bear out’any settlement, the State Government, sent a letter Ex.A-5, dated 30.9.1976, to the accredited representative intimating him, of their intention to pay a ‘net amount’ of Rs.1,10,76,698 after effecting the proposed deductions. Not being satisfied with such offer, the accredited representative initiated further negotiations, but of no avail, as the State Government by G.O.Ms.No.233, P.W.D., dated 12. 1979, intimated the accredited representative about their decision, to pay the net amount of Rs.1,05,59,618 instead of even the sum of Rupees 1,10,76,698 originally offered and directed the payment of the said amount in two instalments. Factually this G.O., mentioned the gross amount payable as Rs.1,89,77,952 and sliced out therefrom, a sum of Rs.84,18,334 as the amount deducted, under the relevant provisions of the Act, before quantifying the net amount payable. Declining to accept the amount so determined and consenting to receive the same without prejudice, the accredited representative sought for a reference to arbitrator, of the disputes, under the provisions of the Act. In this context and background, the State Government issued the reference notification G.O.Ms.No.392, P.W.D., dated 6th March, 1979, directing the constitution of the sole arbitrator as the whole time arbitrator, to resolve the dispute. 3. As many as 40 issues have been framed by the arbitrator on the basis of the claims of the ex-licensee and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the arbitrator has given a very reasoned and elaborate award running to 148 pages. The licensee and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board have filed O.P.Nos.142 of 1984 and 147 of 1983 respectively under Sec.30 of the Arbitration Act in so far as they are aggrieved by the award of the arbitrator. 4. Mr.B.R.Dolia, Senior Advocate appearing for the ex-licensee, though raised several contentions in his O.P.No.142 of 1984, has however, confined his arguments only in so far as it relates to Point Nos.IX and X. Point IX: Deduction of Energy charges due to the Electricity Board. Point X: Deduction of Special rate for excess over quota amounting to Rs.21,84,718 and Rs.82,337 respectively. Mr.B.R.Dolia, Senior Advocate appearing for the ex-licensee, though raised several contentions in his O.P.No.142 of 1984, has however, confined his arguments only in so far as it relates to Point Nos.IX and X. Point IX: Deduction of Energy charges due to the Electricity Board. Point X: Deduction of Special rate for excess over quota amounting to Rs.21,84,718 and Rs.82,337 respectively. He has not advanced arguments in regard to the other points raised in the original petition. Point IX: Whether the deduction of energy charges due to the Board under Sec. 10(d) amounting to Rs.22,16,665 is correct and valid and whether the provision of Sec.6 is a bar to such a deduction and if not what is the correct amount to be deducted? Point X: Whether the deduction of the following amounts due to Government/Board under Sec.10(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1973 is valid and correct in the light of the provisions of Sec.6. If not what is the correct amount to be deducted? Point No.X relates to the proposed deduction under Sec.10(e) of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1973 10 times of amount viz., (a) Electricity Duty, (b) Electricity Tax, (c) Interest on tax for belated payment, (d) Loan on annuities, (e) Special rate for excess over quota, (f) Ordinary surcharge, (g) Belated payment charges, (h) Belated payment surcharge, (i) Loan on Annuities and Government Audit-fee. Point IX relates to the proposed deduction of a sum of Rs.22,16,665, said to represent the arrears due from the ex-licensee, towards the bulk supply of electric energy, during the period prior to one month, preceding the vesting date,and falling with in the purview of Sec.10(d)of the Act. According to the ex-licensee, this entire liability, should be deemed to have been transferred to and vested in the Government, by virtue of the provisions of Sec.6 of the Acquisition Act of 1973 and that consequently, it is not open to the Government, to deduct the same, from the amount payable to them, in lieu of the acquisition of their undertaking. Countering this contention, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has taken up the stand, that the provision in Sec. 10(d), which enabled the Government to sustain, this deduction, is quite distinct and independent of Sec.6 and that consequently the objection of the ex-licensee, is not sustainable. Countering this contention, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has taken up the stand, that the provision in Sec. 10(d), which enabled the Government to sustain, this deduction, is quite distinct and independent of Sec.6 and that consequently the objection of the ex-licensee, is not sustainable. Learned arbitrator after elaborately discussing the point and the rival claims made by both parties has sustained and upheld the deduction claimed under this point to the extent of Rs.21,84,718 instead of Rs.22,16,665. .5. While dealing with point X, which relates to the proposed deduction unci X Sec.10(e) of the Act, of ten items of amounts which includes Special rate for excess over quota Rs.82,337 (Item e) which is stated to represent the Special rate for excess over quota defaulted by the ex-licensee to the Electricity Board, Learned arbitrator has rejected the contentions and held that the ex-licensee had not substantiated this point in any tangible grounds and that the significant and factual circumstance of the execution of the much availing indemnity bond Ex.A-63, in relation to the liability for Electricity Tax, is not present, to repudiate this liability under consideration. In the circumstances the arbitrator has rejected this item in the absence of any dispute over the quantum of amount and has sustained and upheld the claim made by the Electricity Board on this count. 6. However on point No.9, at the time of the argument it was contended on behalf of the ex-licensee by Mr.B.R.Dolia, learned Senior Advocate, that the energy consumption charges due from the consumers for the period prior to one month preceding the date of vesting, left uncollected by them, must have been subsequently collected by the Electricity Board, which stepped into their shoes and consequently, on grounds of equity, the ex-licensee should be relieved of their liability to the extent of such collection. When this argument was advanced the officials representing the Electricity Board and their learned counsel who were present have not chosen to deny or repudiate the charge of subsequent collections by the department, from the consumers, of substantial amount, forming part of this proposed deduction. If so, the Electricity Board is not justified in deducting the amount of Rs.21,84,718 and should have given credit to the amounts collected subsequent to date of the vesting with the Electricity Board. If so, the Electricity Board is not justified in deducting the amount of Rs.21,84,718 and should have given credit to the amounts collected subsequent to date of the vesting with the Electricity Board. Though the matter was adjourned to enable the Electricity Board to furnish the particulars with regard to subsequent collections by the department from the consumers forming part of the proposed deductions, no papers have been placed before me in regard to the actual collections made by the Electricity Board. The Electricity Board is hereby directed to submit a true and proper account in regard to the subsequent collections made by the department in regard to this claim. The Electricity Board will be entitled to the proposed deduction as mentioned in point No.9 only in regard to the amounts remained uncollected. It is also to be seen in this context that if the bills are not paid by the consumers supply will be disconnected. The amount due would be adjusted against the security deposit of three months energy charges which has vested on the Government/Electricity Board. The above state of affairs have not been disputed before the arbitrator and also before me by the learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board. Hence this point is answered on the above lines. Liberty is given to the Electricity Board to furnish particulars to the Ex-licensee with regard to actual collection made by the Department and deduct only the amounts remained uncollected. .7. In O.P.No.157 of 1983 the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board have disputed the findings of the arbitrator in so far as it is against them. Point Nos. are:1,6,7,8,10(b), 10(f), 13, 33, 34, 14, 20, 22 and 36. I have also heard the elaborate arguments on this point from the learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board, who reiterated the contentions raised before the arbitrator. 8. As already mentioned the award of the arbitrator is not only a reasoned one but also elaborate and detailed. It is well settled that in the absence of mistake of law or of fact apparent on the face of the record, the award of the arbitrator is not open for challenge by any party. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with the award of the award in question. It is well settled that in the absence of mistake of law or of fact apparent on the face of the record, the award of the arbitrator is not open for challenge by any party. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with the award of the award in question. In this connection it is useful to refer to the following decisions of the highest court of the land and also of our High Court. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, v. Indian Carbon Ltd., A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1340, the Supreme Court held that where reasons for giving the award are stated in the award and no error of law could be pointed out in those reasons; there was no error of fact and the view taken by the arbitrator was a possible view to take; and the arbitrator has made his mind known on the basis of which he has acted; that is sufficient to meet requirements even if it be reasons should be stated in the award. In State of Orissa v. Dandasi Sahu, A.I.R. 1988 S.C.1791, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “It is well-settled that when the parties choose their own arbitrator to be the judge in dispute between them, they cannot, when the award is good on the face of it, object to the decision either upon law or on facts. Therefore, when arbitrator commits a mistake either in law or in fact in determining the matters referred to him where such mistake does not appear on the face of the award and the documents appended to or incorporated so as to form part of it, the award will neither be remitted nor set aside.” In Hindustan Tea Company v. K.Sashikant Company, 1986 S.C.C. (Supp.) 506, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “The award is reasoned one. The objections which have been raised against the award are such that they cannot indeed be taken into consideration within the limited ambit of challenge admissible under the scheme of the Arbitration Act. Under the law, the arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties. The award is not open to challenge on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate facts.” In Chinnasamy v. Superintending Engineer, (1989)2 M.L.J. 415, Nainar Sundaram and Bellie, JJ. Under the law, the arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties. The award is not open to challenge on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate facts.” In Chinnasamy v. Superintending Engineer, (1989)2 M.L.J. 415, Nainar Sundaram and Bellie, JJ. have held that it is not the function of the court to scrutinise the award on merits as if it is sitting in appeal on the verdict of the arbitrator. Applying the above ruling and the rulings in plethora of decisions of the highest court of the land and the highest court of the state it is not possible to interfere with the award of the arbitrator. In my considered opinion, it does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. I have no jurisdiction to deal with judicially with the merits of the case determined by the arbitrator. It is not my function to scrutinise the award on merits as if I am sitting in appeal on the verdict of the arbitrator. There is no scope for me to invoke the aid of Sec.30 of the Act for setting aside the awards, in question as I see no cause to interfere with the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration, or to set aside the award, a definite and a positive result must follow, and that is set out by the statute in Sec.17. Under these circumstances, I have no other option except to pronounce judgment according to the award which shall be followed by a decree. However subject to my verdict on the question of award of interest as stated infra. 9. Mr.B.R.Dolia, Senior Advocate, appearing for the ex-licensee, vehemently contended that in any event the rate of interest granted by the arbitrator should be interfered with. In support of his contention he relied on the following decisions: Executive Engineer (Irrigation) v. Abhaduta Jena, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1520: (1988)1 S.C.C. 418 , Gujarat Water Supply and Sew. Board v. Unique Erectors, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 973: (1989)1 S.C.C. 532 , Sankari Prasad v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 Cal. 53 and also my order in O.P.No.284 of 1987 and O.P.No.274 of 1985, dated 27. 1990. Board v. Unique Erectors, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 973: (1989)1 S.C.C. 532 , Sankari Prasad v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 Cal. 53 and also my order in O.P.No.284 of 1987 and O.P.No.274 of 1985, dated 27. 1990. 10.Per contra Mr.K.V.Venkatapathy, learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that the interest awarded by the arbitrator is just and reasonable and that it is in accordance with the statutory provisions which prescribes granting of interest at 6% per annum and hence the licensee will be entitled to interest only at that rate till date of realisation of the amount. 11. In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to bear in mind that the acquisition was made under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition Act), 1973. Sec.11 of the aforesaid Act deals with manner of payment of amount which has to be given to a licensee and it inter alia provides that in the absence of an agreement the amounts shall be paid in each in 3 equal annual instalments, the amount of each such instalment carrying interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the vesting date. Sec.13 of the aforesaid Act provides for determination of disputes referred to therein by the arbitrator appointed under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.11. 12. The arbitrator has formulated Issue No.38 for decision in regard to interest. Issue No.38: What is the proper order as to the interest? The arbitrator in paragraphs 87 and 88 of his award has dealt with this question and has held as follows: "87. Having regard to the clear and unequivocal provision contained in Sec.11(3) (ii)(a) of the Act, it is not in dispute, that the ex-licensee, should be paid interest, at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, on the "amount" held to be due to them, from 12. 1973 the date of vesting, till the date of payment. As mentioned earlier, the ex-licensee had been sanctioned the payment of Rs.1,05,59,618, in two instalments of Rs.52,79,809 each, under the terms of the notification Ex.A-10. Further on the applications I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 1982, I had also passed an interim award dated 2. 1982, directing the payment to the ex-licensee, of a sum of Rs.5,90,680 together with interest thereon, at 6 per cent per annum, from 12. 1973 to the date of payment. Further on the applications I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 1982, I had also passed an interim award dated 2. 1982, directing the payment to the ex-licensee, of a sum of Rs.5,90,680 together with interest thereon, at 6 per cent per annum, from 12. 1973 to the date of payment. Though it is represented before me, that the above amounts had been disbursed to the ex-licensee, I have not been furnished, the necessary details regarding such payments. In the circumstances, I make the following provisions, for the computation of the ultimate balance of amount and the interest thereon, payable to the ex-licensee, under this award. 88. On the ‘net amount’ payable as on 12. 1973 interest at 6 per cent per annum, from that date, upto the date of the deposit into court, of the first instalment ordered in Ex.A-10 has to be calculated. Keeping apart the ascertained net amount as principal amount and the worked out interest, as distinct and separate items, the first instalment amount deposited should be deducted from the principal amount aforesaid. If any interest had been paid along with the first instalment, the same should be deducted from the interest amount above calculated. From that date of deposit of the first instalment, to the date of deposit into Court of the second instalment as per Ex.A-10, interest at 6% per annum, should be calculated on the balance of principal amount, and added to the amount due under the head ‘interest’. The same procedure as aforesaid should be adopted, in giving credit to the deposit of the second instalment, as also the interest amount, if any, paid therewith. On the balance of principal amount remaining on that later date, interest should be worked out at 6 per cent per annum, till the date of the payment of the amount, ordered in the interim award dated 2. 1982 and added to the amount due under the head interest. The same procedure as aforesaid should be adopted, in giving credit to the interim award amount and the interest thereon. From that date onwards, interest should be calculated at 6 per cent per annum, on the principal amount still remaining due, upto the date of the final discharge of the entire liability, under this award, adding such amount to the head of ‘Interest’. From that date onwards, interest should be calculated at 6 per cent per annum, on the principal amount still remaining due, upto the date of the final discharge of the entire liability, under this award, adding such amount to the head of ‘Interest’. This point is accordingly found in the above terms." The award of the arbitrator granting interest at 6% per annum from the vesting date cannot be characterised as an error apparent on the face of the record. On the contrary the arbitrator has strictly applied the provisions of the Act in the matter of grant of interest. There cannot be any dispute in the present case in regard to the entitlement of interest, for the provisions of acquisition Act are very clear. I am unable to accept the contentions of Mr.B.R.Dolia, that the rate of interest granted by the arbitrator at 6% per annum is inadequate and therefore same requires enhancement in my hands. Having regard to the limited scope of interference in proceedings under Sec.30 of the Act, it is not possible for me to hold that the arbitrator has committed an error apparent in granting interest at 6% per annum. Therefore I am not able to interfere with the award of the arbitrator on this aspect of the matter. Reliance was placed on my orders in O.P.No.284 of 1987 and O.P.No.274 of 1985 dated 27. 1990 which is not quite opposite. Because in that case the arbitrator did not award any interest even though it was asked for and the case arose after the Interest Act, 1978. In such a circumstance this Court granted interest at 15% per annum by applying the ratio laid down in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P)Ltd, A.I.R. 1989S.C. 973. But that decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the arbitrator has granted interest at 6% per annum in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition Act. Further in the order in O.P.Nos.284 of 1987 and 274 of 1985, dated 27. 1990, I have not interfered with the amount awarded by the arbitrator, but interfered only with the award in so far as it did not consider the claim of interest for the amount awarded. That is not the case here. Further in the order in O.P.Nos.284 of 1987 and 274 of 1985, dated 27. 1990, I have not interfered with the amount awarded by the arbitrator, but interfered only with the award in so far as it did not consider the claim of interest for the amount awarded. That is not the case here. Unless a case has been made out to interfere with the award of the arbitrator on the question of award of interest at 6% per annum, it will not be open to this Court to grant interest at higher rate. For the reasons already set out the award of the arbitrator does not suffer from any error apparent, in the matter of grant of interest at 6% per annum. Hence I am unable to interfere with the award of the arbitrator in this issue. However this Court has got jurisdiction under Sec.29 to grant interest from the date of decree. In exercise of my powers under the said section and having regard to the provisions of Interest Act, 1978, it would be in the interest of justice if interest is allowed at the rate of 15% per annum from this date till date of realisation, especially when the undertaking of the ex-licensee was acquired in October, 1973 and the vesting took place on 12. 1973. More than 17 years have lapsed since the date of vesting and the share-holders of licensee who represent a cross section of society are waiting for a period of more than 17 years to receive their share of compensation amount. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has been operating the undertaking ever since the date of vesting. Therefore I hold that the ex-licensee shall be entitled to payment of the amount quantified by the arbitrator together with interest at 6% per annum as ordered by the arbitrator till date and entitled to recover the said sum at 15% per annum from this date still remaining due till the date of realisation. 13.. The other three decisions, cited by Mr.B.R.Dolia learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, viz., Sankari Prasad v. Union of India, A.I.R 1987 Cal. 53, Executive Engineer (Irrigation) v. Abhaduta Jena, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1520: (1988)1 S.C.C. 418 , Gujarat Water Supply and Sew. 13.. The other three decisions, cited by Mr.B.R.Dolia learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, viz., Sankari Prasad v. Union of India, A.I.R 1987 Cal. 53, Executive Engineer (Irrigation) v. Abhaduta Jena, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1520: (1988)1 S.C.C. 418 , Gujarat Water Supply and Sew. Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) P. Ltd, A.I.R 1989 S.C. 973: (1989) 1 S.C.C. 532 , are not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and are distinguishable. I have also referred to some of these decisions in my order in O.P.Nos.287 of 1987 and 274 of 1985, dated 27. 1990 in so far as they are applicable to the facts of that case. Hence applying the ratio laid down in these decisions in so far as it is applicable to the facts of this case, I order payment of interest at 15% per annum from this date on the amounts quantified by the arbitrator. 14. In the result O.P.No.290 of 1982 filed by the arbitrator is ordered as prayed for. O.P.No.157 of 1983 filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, is dismissed and O.P.No.142 of 1984 is allowed in part. There will be a decree in favour of the South Madras Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., in accordance with the award subject to the modification made by me with regard to the interest. Under these circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs.