PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. ( 1 ) IA No. 933/02 contains objections filed by respondent No. 1 to the award dated 7. 5. 2000 published by Shri Dharni Dhar impleaded as defendant No. 2. ( 2 ) SUIT was registered by this Court when Arbitrator filed the award and the record of proceedings. Notice of filing of the award was served upon the parties. National Projects Construction Corporation (defendant No. 1) filed objections to the award. ( 3 ) AWARD determines claims of M/s. Fixopan Engineers Pvt. Ltd. , claimant before the Arbitrator. ( 4 ) I would be referring to M/s. Fixopan Engineers Pvt. Ltd. as the claimant and National Projects Constructions Corporation as the objector. ( 5 ) BEFORE dealing with the objections, a brief backdrop of the relevant facts which are necessary for adjudication of the objections may be noted. ( 6 ) OBJECTOR invited offers as per the notice inviting tender for supply, erection and commissioning of a water distribution system for 'inducing draft cooling towers' at Korba (M. P. ). Claimant submitted its offer as per tender documents. Claimant filled the relevant parts of the tender document while submitting the offer. Therefore, the tender documents as submitted by the claimant form part of the contract inasmuch as acceptance by the objector was to the offer as made by the claimant by filling up the tender documents. Inter alia. Sub-clause (v) of Clause 14 of the tender document under the caption 'general CONDITIONS OF contract' stipulated as under:" (v) Subject as hereinafter provided in relevant contract conditions, all charges on account of control, terminal, or sales tax and other duties on materials obtained for the works from any source (excluding materials supplied by the Corporation) shall be borne by the sub-contractor. " ( 7 ) THE letter of award was issued by the objector on 9. 1. 1987 which, inter alia, vide Clauses 8, 9 and 10 recorded as under A:"8. Escalation-The rates for various items of work are based on the prices of basic raw materials as on 23. 12. 86. At present no sales tax and excise duty is separately applicable. 1. 1987 which, inter alia, vide Clauses 8, 9 and 10 recorded as under A:"8. Escalation-The rates for various items of work are based on the prices of basic raw materials as on 23. 12. 86. At present no sales tax and excise duty is separately applicable. Any increase in the rates on account of increase in the cost of basic raw materials, sales tax, excise duty or any other levy due to enactment of new law or due to change in tax structure by the statutory authorities, shall be compensated by NPCC as per actuals on production of documentary proof and analysis of rate to this effect. Escalation on account of labour is not payable for this contract. 9. This being a works contract, no sales tax/duties are applicable apparently for this contract. However, if any sales tax/duties become or is applicable on inputs by the statutory authorities the same shall be paid by npcc at actuals on production of documentary proof. 10. This being a works contract, at present no sales tax on turnover/ turnover tax is applicable for this contract. However, if any sales tax on turnover becomes applicable due enactment of new laws by the statutory authorities the same shall be paid by NPCC directly to the concerned authorities. " ( 8 ) POST issuance of the letter of award, a clarificatory letter dated 27. 1. 1987 was written by the objector. The same reads as under: General Manager, NPCC Ltd. , Korba . Sub. Drift Eliminators for cooling Towers Korba STPP. Dear Sir, Kindly refer to letter of award No. 700605/project dated 9. 1. 87 issued to M/s. Fixopan Engineers Pvt. Ltd. , for above work. In Clause 9 on Page 4 of letter of award, the word input means all materials being used for manufacture of drift Eliminators viz. raw materials and finished items for louvres , spacers, tie rods, washers, pins, fabricated galvanised angle iron frames, anchor bolt fasteners. Any Sales Tax or excise duty payable by the firm on the material or manufactured item shall be paid to M/s. Fixopan at actuals on production of original documents as a proof of Excise Duty and Sales Tax having been paid by the firm. Any Sales Tax or excise duty payable by the firm on the material or manufactured item shall be paid to M/s. Fixopan at actuals on production of original documents as a proof of Excise Duty and Sales Tax having been paid by the firm. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, sd /- (O. S. GUPTA) General Manager (M & P) ( 9 ) WORK being completed, claimant had a grievance that full payment was not made by the objector. The claimant had 4 claims, being: (a) Claim No. 1 in the sum of Rs. 2,22,272. 79 towards reimbursement of sales tax on manufacturing items. (b) Claim No. 2 in the sum of Rs. 32,300/- for reimbursement of State sales tax at M. P. Border. (c) Claim No. 3 in the sum of Rs. 1,44,155/- as excise duty paid on inputs, and (d) Claim No. 4 in the sum of Rs. 1,25,449 /- towards reimbursement of turn over tax paid by the claimant. ( 10 ) THERE was a claim for interest on account on non-payment of aforesaid four claims. Interest was claimed w. e. f. 31. 8. 1993. ( 11 ) A sum of Rs. 4,47,6747- has been awarded to the claimant. The award does not show how said sum has been arrived at, but learned Counsel for the claimant submitted at the hearing held on 28. 7. 2006 that the said sum was arrived at as under: 1. Full Claim No. 1 Rs. 2,22,272. 79 2. Full claim No. 3 Rs. 1,44,155. 00 3. Part claim No. 4 Rs . 81,246. 00 Total Rs. 4,47,673. 79 (Rounded off to Rs. 4,47,674/-) ( 12 ) OPERATIVE part of the award reads as under:"7. Whereas I have carefully perused the pleadings and arguments heard them, examined and carefully considered the evidence adduced, submissions made and their respective contentions and have applied my mind. 8. Whereas I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in Clauses 8, 9 and 10 of purchase order dated 12. 1. 87. 9. Now Therefore, I award the claimants a total sum of Rs. 4,47,674/- (Rupees four lacs fortyseven thousand six hundred seventyfour only)towards the principal amount of claim and further award interest as under: (a) Pre suit interest @ 10% from the date of completion (31. 1. 90) till commencement of arbitration 31. 8. 93) on Rs. 4,66,428/ and from 2. 9. Now Therefore, I award the claimants a total sum of Rs. 4,47,674/- (Rupees four lacs fortyseven thousand six hundred seventyfour only)towards the principal amount of claim and further award interest as under: (a) Pre suit interest @ 10% from the date of completion (31. 1. 90) till commencement of arbitration 31. 8. 93) on Rs. 4,66,428/ and from 2. 12. 92 to 31. 8. 93 on Rs. 81,246/. (b) Pendente lite interest @, 10% p. a. on the principal amount from 1. 9. 93 to date of award viz. 7. 5. 2000. (c) Simple interest @ 10% p. a. from the date of award to the date of award to the date of payment or decree, whichever is earlier. " ( 13 ) IT is obvious that dispute between the parties pertained to claim for reimbursement of sales tax and excise duty on inputs as also reimbursement of turn over tax paid by the claimant. ( 14 ) BUT, in view of the objections raised, other issues have also to be decided and since large number of issues were raised, 1 propose to list the issues raised and dispose of the same at seriatim. ( 15 ) THE first and foremost objection raised was that the award was actually signed on 17. 4. 2000 and on 7. 5. 2000 learned Arbitrator had become functus officio. He could not publish the award on 7. 5. 2000. ( 16 ) BASIS of the said objection is that in the photocopy of the award sent to the objector (which has been filed along with the objections) at Page No. 1 of the award, it bears the date 7. 5. 2000 but on Page 5, towards the end, just before the signatures of the learned Arbitrator, it is recorded: 'on this seventeenth day of April two thousand at Ghaziabad". ( 17 ) BUT, the original award submitted by the learned Arbitrator bears the date 7. 5. 2000 on the first Page and on the last page, just before the signatures of the arbitrator following is written : 'signed on this seventh day of May two thousand at Ghaziabad'. ( 18 ) MR. V. C. Bahri, learned Counsel for the objector urged that it is obvious that the award was signed on 17th day of April, 2000 and, therefore, learned arbitrator had become functus officio on the said date. ( 18 ) MR. V. C. Bahri, learned Counsel for the objector urged that it is obvious that the award was signed on 17th day of April, 2000 and, therefore, learned arbitrator had become functus officio on the said date. Counsel submitted that the arbitrator could not sign the award on 7. 5. 2000. ( 19 ) AUTHORITIES were cited to show that when the Arbitrator becomes functus officio, he cannot sign the award thereafter. ( 20 ) THERE is no quarrel with the proposition that when an Arbitrator becomes functus officio, he ceases to, thereafter, exercise any jurisdiction on the subject matter before him. But the question which arises is whether the Arbitrator became functus officio on 17. 4. 2000. or whether he has resorted to fabrication. ( 21 ) RECORD of the Arbitrator shows that hearing was concluded by the learned arbitrator on 4. 2. 2000 and he directed the claimant to send a stamp paperen which the award had to be drawn. Order records that the award would be made in due course but would be published and given to the parties only after fee of the arbitrator was paid. (Order has been noted in para 28 below.) ( 22 ) I may note that the learned Arbitrator was not paid his fee by the objector when hearing was concluded. ( 23 ) UNFORTUNATELY, notice under which the learned Arbitrator published the record is not available in the record of arbitration and neither party has placed on record the letter under which they received the award. ( 24 ) LEARNED Arbitrator has not put any date under his signatures. Whereas first Page of the award (photocopy) supplied to the parties bears the date 7. 5. 2000, the last Page records it as having been signed on 17. 4. 2000. But, the original award bears the date 7. 5. 2000 on the first Page and just before the signatures of the arbitrator on the last Page bears an endorsement that the same has been signed on the 7th day of May, 2000. ( 25 ) IT appears that the learned Arbitrator had prepared the award in the month of April, 2000 but since his fee was not paid by the objector he did not sign or publish the award. Admittedly, objector's share of fee was paid by the claimant. ( 25 ) IT appears that the learned Arbitrator had prepared the award in the month of April, 2000 but since his fee was not paid by the objector he did not sign or publish the award. Admittedly, objector's share of fee was paid by the claimant. It appears that thereafter the award was signed and published. In the original of the award, learned Arbitrator corrected the date but in the copy sent to the objector the correction was not made. What is determinative is the fact that the first Page of the award, photocopy sent to the objector, bears the date 7. 5. 2000. ( 26 ) SAVE and except the date, the photocopy of the award sent to the objector is a verbatim copy of the original award. ( 27 ) A second limb of this argument was that at the hearing held on 17. 5. 1999 parties extended, by mutual consent, time upto 23. 2. 2000 for the Arbitrator to publish the award and that the learned Arbitrator manipulated the record by scoring of the month 'february' and over writing 'may' thereon. ( 28 ) LEARNED Counsel, Shri V. C. Bahri drew my attention to the minutes of 54th meeting held by the Arbitrator on 17. 12. 1999, wherein, in the order passed on 17. 12. 1999 month 'february' was scored of and the month 'may' was over written. But that to my mind does not show any interpolation for the reason after 17. 12. 1999, further hearing was held on 4. 2. 2000, being the last hearing, wherein in the order learned Arbitrator has recorded as under:"matter taken up. Both the parties have given their written arguments to me and to each other. The time for making award (as per minutes of the 54th meeting held on 17. 12. 1999) is upto 23rd May, 2000. The claimant will send a stamp paper of adequate value. Both the parties have closed their case. The award will be made in due course but it will be published and given to parties only after the fees of the Arbitrator has been paid. " ( 29 ) THE said order has been signed by Shri V. C. Bahri, learned Advocate for the objector as also by one Shri P. Anand who appeared for the claimant. Mr. The award will be made in due course but it will be published and given to parties only after the fees of the Arbitrator has been paid. " ( 29 ) THE said order has been signed by Shri V. C. Bahri, learned Advocate for the objector as also by one Shri P. Anand who appeared for the claimant. Mr. V. C. Bahri, learned Counsel for the objector has no explanation to furnish as to why he did not object on 4. 2. 2000 when order of even date recorded that vide previous order dated 17. 12. 1999, time was extended by the parties upto 23. 5. 2000 for the arbitrator to publish the award. ( 30 ) THE first objection is frivolous and 1 reject the same. ( 31 ) THE second objection raised was that the award is a procured award. Shri v. C. Bahri, learned Counsel submitted that learned Arbitrator received his share of the fee payable by the objector from the claimant together with interest and this shows that the award was procured. ( 32 ) OBJECTOR is a public sector undertaking and one expects public sector undertakings to act reasonably and rationally. I see no reason why the objector did not pay its share of fee to the learned Arbitrator. As noted above, while concluding hearing on 4. 2. 2000, learned Arbitrator recorded that unless he received his fee, he would not publish the award. As per said order dated 4. 2. 2000, parties had extended time for making the award upto 23. 5. 2000. Time was running out for the claimant and if award was not published by 23. 5. 2000, claimant would have been the sufferer as its claim would have suffered a death by default. Objector was obviously playing it dirty. If claimant paid objector's share of the fee and Arbitrator received the same, it was to facilitate publication of the award. It does not lie in the mouth of the objector to cry wolf on the issue. The objection is wholly frivolous and is rejected. ( 33 ) THIRD objection raised was that the award is antidated. 1 just do not understand the said objection inasmuch as, vide order dated 4. 2. 2000 it was recorded by the learned Arbitrator that time was extended till 23. 5. 2000 for him to publish the award. The objection is wholly frivolous and is rejected. ( 33 ) THIRD objection raised was that the award is antidated. 1 just do not understand the said objection inasmuch as, vide order dated 4. 2. 2000 it was recorded by the learned Arbitrator that time was extended till 23. 5. 2000 for him to publish the award. Issue of antidating would be relevant if case of the objector was that the learned Arbitrator had signed the award after 23. 5. 2000. But, what was urged by Shri V. C. Bahri, learned Counsel for the objector, was that the award was signed on 17. 4. 2000. The objection pertaining to antidating is an absurd objection. 1 fail to understand as to how this objection can live in harmony with the first objection that on 7. 5. 2000 the learned Arbitrator had become functus officio. ( 34 ) THE fourth objection was that the learned Arbitrator was to give a reasoned award and that the award was not reasoned. Therefore, the same had to be set aside. ( 35 ) MR. V. C. Bahri, learned Counsel for the objector admitted that under the arbitration Act, 1940, unless mandated to give a reasoned award, a nonspeaking award could be made by the Arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration Act, 1940. So conceding the legal position. Counsel urged that on 11. 4. 2000 the claimant, while submitting the stamp paper of Rs. 100/- to the Arbitrator for giving the award requested as under:"we would be highly obliged, if you could kindly award a speaking award giving full reasons for your decision and not a nonspeaking award. " ( 36 ) LETTER dated 11. 4. 2000 is a letter of request from the claimant to the learned Arbitrator. Nothing was shown from the agreement or the arbitration clause contained therein nor was it shown with reference to any document or order passed by the learned Arbitrator to the effect that both parties required him to give reasons for the award. Unless mandate of the Arbitrator casts an obligation on him to give reasons in support of the award (pre-1996 position), a nonspeaking award is legal and valid. I reject the fourth objection to the award. ( 37 ) THAT takes me to the substance of the issue. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on merits. Unless mandate of the Arbitrator casts an obligation on him to give reasons in support of the award (pre-1996 position), a nonspeaking award is legal and valid. I reject the fourth objection to the award. ( 37 ) THAT takes me to the substance of the issue. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on merits. ( 38 ) A perusal of the award shows that the learned Arbitrator has given some reasons, being that the claimant had established that Clauses 8. 9 and 10 of the purchase order dated 12. 1. 1987 were attracted,. ( 39 ) LEARNED Counsel for the parties conceded that reference to Clause 8 was superfluous inasmuch as the disputes were relatable only to Clauses 9 and 10 for the reason, issue of escalation was not involved. ( 40 ) MR. V. C. Bahri, learned Counsel for the objector urged that Subclause (v) of Clause 14 of the contract all duties and taxes were to be borne to by the claimant and thus learned Arbitrator could not have awarded anything under the claims as they related to sales tax, excise duty and turnover tax. Counsel stated that turnover tax was a sales tax on a works contract in respect of the supply part of the contract. ( 41 ) AS noted above, after claimant submitted the offer as per tender documents, letter of award followed, The said letter of award contains Clauses 9 and 10 which have been noted by me in para 7 hereinabove. Clause 9 records that being a works contract, no sales tax/duties are applicable for the contract. But records that if a statutory authority levies sales tax/duties on inputs, same shall be paid by the objector. Clause 10 records that being a works contract, at present, no sales tax on turnover or turnover tax is applicable. However, if sales tax or turnover tax becomes applicable due to enactment of a law, same shall be paid directly by the objector to the concerned authorities. ( 42 ) CLAIMANT sought a clarification from the objector as to what was meant by the word 'inputs' used in Clause 9 of the letter of award. Necessary clarification was given by the objector vide letter dated 27. 1. 1987, contents noted in para 8 above. ( 43 ) OBJECTOR clarified that the word input meant all materials used for manufacture of drift eliminators viz. Necessary clarification was given by the objector vide letter dated 27. 1. 1987, contents noted in para 8 above. ( 43 ) OBJECTOR clarified that the word input meant all materials used for manufacture of drift eliminators viz. raw materials and finished items for louvres, spacers, tie rods, washers, pins, fabricated galvanized angle iron frames, anchor bolt fastners. With further clarification that any sales tax or excise duty payable by the firm on the material or manufactured item shall be paid at actuals or production of original documents as a proof of excise duty and sales tax having been paid by the firm. ( 44 ) SINCE the tender documents envisaged a formal agreement to be executed on a stamp paper, parties executed a written agreement ( Page 10/109, file No. 2 of the arbitrator) wherein apart from tender documents, objector's letter of award dated 9. 1. 1987 and objector's clarificatory letter dated 27. 1. 1987 were listed as contractual documents. ( 45 ) IT is settled law that an Arbitrator is the final authority to interpret the contract between the parties. Dispute between the parties required an interpretation of Sub clause (v) of Clause 14 of the contract visavis clauses 9 and 10 of the letter of award and objector's clarificatory letter dated 27/1/1987. The learned Arbitrator has refunded to the claimant sales tax and excise duty recovered by statutory authorities in respect of the items utilized for executing the works. In the teeth of the letter of award and the clarificatory dated 27/1/1987 it cannot be said that the award suffers from an error apparent on the face of the award. I may clarify that while deciding on the issue 1 have proceeded to discuss the issue treating that for the award reasons flow from Clauses 9 and 10 of the letter of award inasmuch as the learned Arbitrator has opined in the award that claimant had established applicability of Clauses 9 and 10 and that the applicant had fulfilled the same. I understand this to mean that the learned Arbitrator has held that there was evidence to show that the amounts awarded were proved to have been paid by the claimant to statutory authorities. ( 46 ) I find the objections wholly frivolous. It is an unfortunate trend noted by me that each and every award is being objected to. I understand this to mean that the learned Arbitrator has held that there was evidence to show that the amounts awarded were proved to have been paid by the claimant to statutory authorities. ( 46 ) I find the objections wholly frivolous. It is an unfortunate trend noted by me that each and every award is being objected to. I have not come across a single execution petition pertaining to an award which shows that the parties have accepted the award. Time has come for the Courts to snuff out frivolous objections to awards by sending a message. Of course, bonafide objections even if found unsustainable would be acceptable because every person has a right to have his grievance redressed from a Court of law, but where it is found that the objections are frivolous and intended to delay compliance with the award, heavy costs must follow. ( 47 ) I dismiss IA No. 933/02 with costs in the sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 in favour of the claimant and against the objector. ( 48 ) THE award dated 7/5/2000 published by Shri Dharni Dhar is made a rule of the Court. Post decretal interest is awarded to the claimant against the objector @ 10% per annum till realization. Ordered accordingly.