ORDER Leave granted. 2. Limited notice was issued in this case by the order of this Court dated 25.11.99 as follows :- "Notice to issue returnable on 1st February, 2000, to show cause why appropriate orders should not be passed even on terms of the alleged settlement dated 27th March, 1991 as learned senior counsel Shri Nariman for the petitioner states that the petitioner will be agreeable to the proposal stated therein and receive the said amount with appropriate rate of interest from that date, to settle the whole dispute. It is made clear that on the returnable date the Special Leave Petition will be finally disposed of. There will be ad interim stay of the further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order of the High Court, in the meantime." 3. The matter arises under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appellant filed an application under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 on 15.1.1999 for revoking the authority of the Chief Engineer and appointing one D.P. Roy Choudhury or any other person as Sole Arbitrator. At that stage, the appellant approached the Minister on 7.2.1991 and he directed the Superintending Engineer, D.K. Bharati to submit a report on the claim. Mr. Bharati gave a report on 23.2.1991 recommending the payment of Rs. 30,76,221/- on account of extra work. But later on the Single Judge of Calcutta High Court passed an order on 6.9.1991 appointing Shri D.P. Roy Choudhury, Chief Engineer as Sole Arbitrator. He entered on the reference on 25.4.1992. The matter relating to his appointment was the subject matter of the decision by the Caluctta High Court which came up to this Court and was decided in State of West Bengal v. M/s. Gourangelal Chatterjee1. Subsequently Mr. D.R.P. Chowdhury passed an award on 25.3.1998, in a sum of Rs. 43,49,320/- with interest @ 16% from 1st May, 1988. This Award was made rule of the Court by learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court on 6.4.1999. On appeal by the State the Division Bench in its judgment dated 23.9.1999, came to the conclusion that the appellant was bound by the recommendation of Shri Bharati for Rs. 30,76,221/- and therefore was not entitled to the sum fixed by Shri D.P. Roy Chowdhury. It is against this judgment the appellant Contractor has filed this appeal. We have already referred to the limited notice that was given at the time of admission. 4. 30,76,221/- and therefore was not entitled to the sum fixed by Shri D.P. Roy Chowdhury. It is against this judgment the appellant Contractor has filed this appeal. We have already referred to the limited notice that was given at the time of admission. 4. Learned counsel on both sides have made their submissions in regard to the date from which interest has to be granted and also in regard to the rate of interest. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that on the sum of Rs. 30,76,221/- as recommended by Shri D.K. Bharati, the appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 16% from 27th March, 1991. We direct accordingly. The appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. The respondent will pay the amount to the appellant within three months from today with interest up to date of payment or at the above-mentioned rate. 6. In view of the agreement between the parties it has not become necessary to go into the merits of the various contentions raised in the High Court. (C.R.) Appeal disposed of accordingly. *************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : M/s. Gourange Lal Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal & Anr., 2000(5) Supreme 180 00028