MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) BY this judgment and order 1 propose to dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996. ( 2 ) THE respondent was awarded a work of supply, installation, testing and commissioning of sub station and cabling at Red Fort vfde work order dated 17. 6. 1994. During the course of execution of the aforesaid contract disputes arose between the* parties arising out of the aforesaid contract. The said disputes were referred to the arbitration of Shri S. S. Aggarwal in terms of the arbitration clause between the parties. The arbitrator entered into the reference, received evidence adduced by the parties and made the award on 18. 8. 1999. . ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid award passed by the arbitrator, the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the petitioner contending, inter alia, that the aforesaid award was made by the arbitrator by disregarding the provisions of the agreement and also in disregard of the facts of the case. ( 4 ) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the counsel for the respondent. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no basis and justification for the conclusions arrived by the arbitrator in his award dated 18. 8. 1999. It was submitted by him that while passing the award the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction and that the award was passed against the public policy of India. I have perused the award passed by the arbitrator as also the records placed before me and proceed to dispose of the petition dealing with the submissions of the counsel. ( 5 ) SO far claim No. 1 is concerned, the arbitrator considered the said claim and the rival contentions of the parties and by his award as against the said claim, he directed that an amount of Rs. 2,76,250/- be paid to the respondent, as, according to him, the said claim was justified, substantiated, proved and established. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the arbitrator has recorded his reasons holding that while the work was to be completed" by 16. 9. 2,76,250/- be paid to the respondent, as, according to him, the said claim was justified, substantiated, proved and established. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the arbitrator has recorded his reasons holding that while the work was to be completed" by 16. 9. 1994 including construction of the building to some extent so as to provide place in the above building to the respondent-contractor to execute their part of the works, the petitioner raised a fresh issue for the first time as late as December 1994 holding the respondent responsible for getting the formal clearance from the DESU of the site/location and layout plan of the sub station building before the start of the construction of the building vide a note of the officer of the petitioner on 19. 12. 1994. So far delivery of the HT panels is concerned, the arbitrator has referred to the correspondences of the respondent intimating the petitioner regarding delivery of the HT panel at site by their letter dated 19. 12. 1994. Since the arbitrator has recorded his reasons for coming to the conclusion for allowing the claim, and as no specific case could be made out to prove and establish that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction in making the aforesaid award, the same cannot be said to be in any manner coming within the ambit of the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In Olympus superstructures Pvt. Ltd. , Vs. Meena vijay Khetan and Ors. reported in AIR 1999 sc 2102 , the Supreme Court has held that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the scope of the provisions for setting aside the award is far less than the same under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration act, 1940. Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of submissions, also relied upon the provisions of Clause 2 (b) (ii) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 providing that the arbitral award, if it is found to be in conflict with public policy, may be set aside by the court. There is an explanation added to the aforesaid provision providing that an award shall be treated to be in conflict with public policy of India if the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or section 81 of the Act. There is an explanation added to the aforesaid provision providing that an award shall be treated to be in conflict with public policy of India if the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or section 81 of the Act. The aforesaid expression of public policy of India is not defined under the Act but in a decision in renusagar Power Co. Ltd. Vs. General electric Co. reported in AIR 1994 SC 860 the said expression came to be considered in respect of the enforcement of a foreign award. It was held by the Supreme Court in the said decision that if the award is found to be contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law or Indian interest or justice and/or morality, the same could also be held to be contrary to public policy of India. ( 6 ) THE award passed by the arbitrator against claim No. 1 in the present case does not attract any of the aforesaid expressions and, therefore, the aforesaid award cannot be set aside as sought for by the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE next challenge was made by the I petitioner in respect of the award passed by the arbitrator against claim No. 4. The arbitrator has held that the aforesaid claim is justified, substantiated and proved for payment of an amount of Rs. 59,802/ -. It was observed by the arbitrator that although the claim of the respondent was initially for payment of an amount of Rs. 32,135/ -. as claimed in the letter dated 15. 5. 1995, the same came to be shown as Rs. 59,802/- based on the calculation by considering the value of the work completed as Rs. 2,76,250/- and accounting 10% of the value of the remaining work. The said amount was awarded on account of loss of profit due to reduction in scope of work. 5. 1995, the same came to be shown as Rs. 59,802/- based on the calculation by considering the value of the work completed as Rs. 2,76,250/- and accounting 10% of the value of the remaining work. The said amount was awarded on account of loss of profit due to reduction in scope of work. It was held by the arbitrator that there was failure on the part of the petitioner in proper planning of the project and that there was casual handling of the contract by the petitioner resulting in dragging the respondent to the stage that he was deprived of supplying the balance items and completion of other works given in the contract other than supply of the HT panel, which deprived the respondent from receiving the reasonable profit, which he contemplated at the time of submission of his offer. The reasons given are sound and cogent. It cannot be denied that due to reduction in scope of work the respondent had lost the opportunity of earning profit, which otherwise could have been earned by the respondent by executing the other part of the contract. The claim was to the extent of 10% of the value of the reduction in scope of work, which was found to be just and reasonable. The said award passed by the arbitrator also does not attract any of the provisions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the light of which the aforesaid challenge was made by the petitioner. Reliance by the petitioner on the decision of this Court in All India Radio vs. Unibros and another; reported in 2002 v AD (Delhi) 922, is misplaced. In the said decision, the arbitrator allowed a claim, being claim No. 12, for damages on account of loss of profit on the ground that the claimant therein could have earned a profit elsewhere if the claimant would not have been forced to continue with the contract with the All India radio. The award was set aside on the ground that no independent evidence was led by the claimant to prove that it was capable of earning such price elsewhere or that such contract was available. However, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. Here, the respondent could have earned a profit if it was allowed to perform the entire contract. However, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. Here, the respondent could have earned a profit if it was allowed to perform the entire contract. Since, however, the work to be performed was reduced arbitrarily, the respondent lost the opportunity to earn such profit, as it could have otherwise earned. The aforesaid award passed by the arbitrator cannot, therefore, be set aside. ( 8 ) SO far claim No. 5 is concerned, the arbitrator directed for refund of Rs. 20,000 which was paid by the respondent to the petitioner towards security deposit. The objection raised by the petitioner as against the aforesaid award is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( 9 ) AN amount of Rs. 25,500/- is awarded by the arbitrator as against claim No. 6 for loss and damages suffered by the respondent due to overheads and under utilisation of infrastructure. While making the aforesaid award, the arbitrator held that the respondent had to spend extra on the overheads than what was contemplated in the contract, on account of improper planning by the petitioner. Although the claim was made for a period of 10 months, the same was found to be not justified and the arbitrator has held that the period of three months is justified for the aforesaid claim as a reasonable compensation for the extra spent by the respondent on the overheads. The petitioner has failed to prove and establish as to how aforesaid findings could be interfered with by this court in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. ( 10 ) CHALLENGE was also made by the petitioner in respect of claim No. 7, which was a claim for payment of interest for the pre-suit, pendente lite and future interest. The arbitrator considered the facts and circumstances of the case and thereafter held that interest @ 18% per annum is reasonable from the date of the appointment of the arbitrator till the date of signing of the award and also for payment of interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the award till the date of actual payment if the awarded amount is not deposited within 75 days of the date of the award. It was submitted that the interest awarded by the arbitrator @ 18% per annum is exorbitant and on the higher side. It was submitted that the interest awarded by the arbitrator @ 18% per annum is exorbitant and on the higher side. I, however, cannot agree with the aforesaid proposition, for it is within the discretion of the arbitrator to award a reasonable interest on the awarded amount. The award passed by the arbitrator from the date of reference of the disputes to him till the date of the award is, therefore, not interfered with. However, so far the award with regard to payment of interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment provided the awarded amount is not paid within a period of 75 days of the date of the award is concerned, it is found that before the expiry of 75 days as stipulated in the award the petitioner filed the present petition in this court under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act Notice was also issued on the aforesaid petition by this court having found that a prima facie arguable case is made out by the petitioner on which the parties have also been heard at length. Once a petition under Section 34 of the Act is filed and entertained, the award cannot be enforced. In that view of the matter 1 direct the petitioner to deposit the entire awarded amount along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of appointment of the arbitrator till the date of the signing of the award within two months from today. In the event of payment made in the aforesaid manner, no interest would be liable to be paid @ 18% per annum from the date of award till the date of actual payment. In case, however, there is failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the amount in terms of the aforesaid order within two months from today, the petitioner shall be liable to pay the entire awarded amount along with interest also @ 18% per annum from the date of the award till the date of actual payment. ( 11 ) AS against claim No. 10, the arbitrator has awarded cost of Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses. The said award cannot be held to be arbitrary. ( 11 ) AS against claim No. 10, the arbitrator has awarded cost of Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses. The said award cannot be held to be arbitrary. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for any interference with the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act except to the extent of order of the arbitrator to pay interest from the date of the award till the date of actual payment in case the said amount is not paid within 75 days from the date of signing of the award in view of the position explained above. ( 13 ) THE petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.