ORDER A. Pasayat, J. - Petitioner's prayer for grant of interest in terms of Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short, the 'Act') having been rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, this court has been moved for interference. 2. Background facts necessary for disposal of the application are as follows : Petitioner was entrusted with the work of construction of Left Earth Dam of Gohira Dam Project from R.D. OOM to 1858M in terms of Agreement No. 4F-2 of 1977-78 with the Executive Engineer, Rehabilitation Division, Gohira Dam Project. A dispute arose between the parties regarding the entitlements of the petitioner and Shri S.K. Das, Member, Arbitration Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, was appointed as the sole Arbitrator. After hearing parties and on consideration of the materials placed before him Arbitrator submitted a non-reasoned and lump sum award of Rs. 11,27,609/-. He granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.7.1979 till the date of payment or decree whichever is earlier. The award was filed in the court of Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar and it was registered as O.S. No. 241 of 1982 (1), and the petitioner was described as plaintiff and opposite parties as defendants. The opposite parties filed objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act, which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 657 of 1982 to set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator, Petitioner filed an application under Section 29 of the Act to award interest from date of decree till payment. Learned Subordinate Judge made the award rule of court, and decreed the suit but refused to grant future interest from date of decree on the ground that interest already granted and calculated at the rate awarded by the Arbitrator would come to a huge amount. 3. In support of the application Mr. S.K. Sanganeria submitted that though grant of interest is discretionary, consideration must be made judiciously with reasons. Strong reliance is placed on a decision of this court in Nityananda Samantaray v. State of Orissa ( AIR 1987 Ori. 132 ). It is stated that the petitioner was also the claimant-petitioner in the said reported case, and the fact situation is identical. Learned counsel for State on the other hand submitted that in the earlier case on reason was indicated. 132 ). It is stated that the petitioner was also the claimant-petitioner in the said reported case, and the fact situation is identical. Learned counsel for State on the other hand submitted that in the earlier case on reason was indicated. But in the case at hand reasons have been indicated by the learned Subordinate Judge which cannot be termed to be perverse or unreasonable, and therefore, while exercising revisional jurisdiction interference is not called for. 4. Section 29 of the Act reads as follows : "29. Interest on award.-Where and in so far as an award is for the payment of money, the court may, in the decree, order interest, from the date of the decree at such rates as the court deems reasonable, to be paid on the principle sum as adjudged by the award confirmed by the decree." The section is new and is based on Section 11 of the English Arbitration Act, 1934. It is an adaptation of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'CPC') and Section 1 of the Interest Act, 1979. No parallel provision existed in the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899 (in short, the 'Old Act'). If the award directs payment of money by one party to the other the court has discretion under this section to direct payment of future interest on the amount decreed. The use of expression 'may' in the provision clearly shows that the power to award interest in discretionary, and the court is not bound to order its payment. The purpose for which Section 29 appears to have been enacted is to ensure prompt payment. In State of Orissa v. M/s. S.L. Narayana ( AIR 1980 Ori. 173 ), it was observed that Section 29 is a wholesome provision to compensate the claimant for the loss sustained by him due to non-payment of the amount by the other side, even after a decree is passed on the Arbitrator's award. Thus, the provision serves as a pressure for satisfying the decree at the earliest convenience. Though power to grant interest under Section 29 is discretionary, yet the court in dealing with such a matter should act judiciously, as the power is vested by a statute. If the court decides to reject the prayer to grant interest, it must do so by expressly stating the reasons for the same. Though power to grant interest under Section 29 is discretionary, yet the court in dealing with such a matter should act judiciously, as the power is vested by a statute. If the court decides to reject the prayer to grant interest, it must do so by expressly stating the reasons for the same. The view expressed by this court in M/s. S.L. Narayana's case (supra) and Nityananda Samantray's case (supra) lend support to the stand of the petitioner. In the later case, which related to the present petitioner, the reasons indicated by the learned Subordinate Judge while refusing to grant interest is the same as indicated in the case at hand. The reasoning was found to be fallacious by this court. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to interest from the date of decree till the date of payment. Interest, according to Section 29 has to be at such rate as the court deems reasonable. In my view, appropriate rate of interest shall be 6% per annum. 5. In the result, the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is modified to the extent as above regarding grant of future interest from the date of decree till the date of payment 6% per annum. The Civil revision is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly. *-*-*-*-*