Sat Pal, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner undersections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and in this petition it has been prayedthat the award dated 26/04/1985 be made a rule of the Court and interest at therate of 18% per annum be awarded. Notice of filing of the award was issued to theparties and thereafter objections were filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. Thefollowing issues were framed:- S. NO. L013-A/85. (I) Whether the award is liable to be. set aside on the grounds mentionedin the objections? (ii) Relief. On the same date the Objector was directed to file affidavit in support of theobjections within six weeks and non-Objector was directed to file the counteraffidavit within six weeks thereafter. Pursuant to this order affidavit and counteraffidavit have been filed. ( 2 ) MR. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Objector has confined his argument tothe objections made in paras 9 and 10 of the objection petition. Learned Counselsubmitted that the original claim of the petitioner was to the extent of Rs. 1,60,830. 00 but before the arbitrator the petitioner vised their claim to the extent ofrs. 4,23,816. 44. He further contended that in the present case the award is a nonspeaking one and it could not be said as to whether the learned Arbitrator hasawarded the amount against which claim, particularly when there was nil claimagainst item Nos. 6,7 and 8 mentioned in para 10 of the objections. Learned counselfurther submitted that the claimant has not claimed any interest prior to the dateof award and as such the learned Arbitrator could not have awarded any amounton account of interest in favour of the claimant. ( 3 ) AFTER having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gonethrough the records of the case I do not find any merit in the contention raised onbehalf of the Objector. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for theobjector amounts to analysing the reasons given by the arbitrator in making theaward whereas no such reasons have been given in this award as the present awardis a non-speaking award. Further, even according to the learned Counsel for theobjector initial demand was made by the petitioner was ofrs. 1,60,830. 00 and theawarded amount is within the aforesaid amount. In view of this the objectionsraised by the Objector are rejected. Further, even according to the learned Counsel for theobjector initial demand was made by the petitioner was ofrs. 1,60,830. 00 and theawarded amount is within the aforesaid amount. In view of this the objectionsraised by the Objector are rejected. The view I have taken is supported by ajudgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hind Builders v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1340 . ( 4 ) AS regards the interest, it is now well settled that the arbitrator has thepower to award interest pendente lite. In this connection a reference may be madeto a judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case ofsecretary, lrregation Department, Government of Orissa v, G. C. Rai, 1992 (1) SCC 508 . Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this contention also. In view of the above discussion the objections contained in IA 6512/85 aredismissed. Having dismissed the objections, the award is made a rule of the Court. Let a decree in terms of the award be drawn. The award shall form part of thedecree. The petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum fromthe date of award till the date of this order. I further direct that in case the decretalamount is paid by the petitioner (?) to the respondent (?) within two months fromthe date of this order, the petitioner will further be entitled to claim interest at therate of 12% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. The parties are,however, left to bear their own costs.