PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. ( 1 ) OBJECTIONS under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been filed by HUDCO to the award dated 22. 5. 2001 published by Shri k. S. Gangadharan. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, relevant facts are that work pertaining to supply and installation of DG sets at HUDCO Building, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi was awarded to the respondent, M/s. Trading Engineers (International) Pvt. Limited. As per contract, date of commencement of the work was 9. 11. 1992. Stipulated date of completion was 8. 5. 1993. Periodic extensions were granted. Vide Ex. P-1, being hudco's letter dated 29. 6. 1998, work was declared completed with retrospective effect being 25. 9. 1995. There was a defect liability period of 12 months. ( 3 ) THE installation had to be tested for its efficacy in relation to load of 1600 KVA. Contractor stated that till said load was not made available, he could not test the DG set which was installed and he could not be held responsible for delay. In other words, though works were completed, testing delayed the formal certification whether the works were completed as per specifications. ( 4 ) MATTER lingered on till the year 1998, when, as noted herein above a retrospective completion with effect from 25. 9. 1995 was given. Contractor had a grievance pertaining to finalisation of its final bill as also interest on delayed payment. Contractor had to keep alive the bank guarantee and on said account had certain claims. Contractor also had a claim for watch and ward employed beyond 1995. ( 5 ) ON the issue of delay, learned arbitrator has returned findings of fact being that delay was occasioned due to (1) non availability of plant room for installation of DG Sets, (2) large additional quantities of exhaust pipes being ordered and work being executed when contractor's work was in progress, (3)delay in granting approval to AMF panel, (4) delay in earthing as entire area was under excavation for car parking, (5) allied works, being trenched for fuel oil pipe not being completed and spray pond not being completed by HUDCO. ( 6 ) REASONS for attributing delay to the respondent are a result of appreciation of evidence. No challenge is permissible to the same. ( 6 ) REASONS for attributing delay to the respondent are a result of appreciation of evidence. No challenge is permissible to the same. Claim No. 1, having 2 components, being principal sum under the bill and interest for delayed payment stands decided in favour of the claimant. ( 7 ) LEARNED arbitrator has noted that after works were completed, the equipment had to be subjected to full load test. HUDCO was held responsible for non execution of the test. In that view of the matter, learned arbitrator has held that the defect liability had to be reckoned with effect from 25. 9. 1995 when DG set was installed. Since defect liability period was 12 months, it expired on 24. 9. 1996. ( 8 ) LEARNED arbitrator disagreed with the view propounded by HUDCO that only when full load was available and equipment was tested, would defect liability period commence. If HUDCO could not make available the full load for testing the DG sets and if works were otherwise completed by the contractor view taken by the arbitrator cannot be called a perverse view and hence cannot be faulted with. ( 9 ) SUM of Rs. 4,98,035/- awarded by the learned arbitrator is after allowing recovery in sum of Rs. 56,695. 50, being amount incurred by HUDCO during defect liability period. Learned counsel for the objector states that the learned arbitrator has erred in disallowing certain other amounts spent by HUDCO during defect liability period. ( 10 ) THE objection is predicated on the defect liability period commencing in the year 1998 and ending in the year 1999. In view of the fact that works were completed in 1995 and testing could not be effected due to non availability of test load, a duty casted upon HUDCO, only such sums which were spent by HUDCO till 24. 9. 1996 could be adjusted as defect liability period came to an end on said date. ( 11 ) I find nothing wrong in the award pertaining to finalisation of the bill. Interest in sum of Rs. 3,88,470/- from 25. 9. 1995 till date of award calculated @18% per annum has been awarded for the reason 80% cost was to be attributed to supply. Thus interest has been awarded on 80% of the sum awarded. Objection taken by HUDCO is that clause 2. 10. 3. Interest in sum of Rs. 3,88,470/- from 25. 9. 1995 till date of award calculated @18% per annum has been awarded for the reason 80% cost was to be attributed to supply. Thus interest has been awarded on 80% of the sum awarded. Objection taken by HUDCO is that clause 2. 10. 3. 1 prohibited grant of any interest to the contractor. ( 12 ) LEARNED arbitrator has noted the said term of the contract but has referred to the Interest On Delayed Payments To Small Scale and Ancillary industrial Undertakings Act 1993. The said Act applies to small scale and ancillary industrial undertakings. Section 4 of the Act states that notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement between the parties or any other law for the time being in force, on outstanding payments to small scale and ancillary undertaking, interest would have to be paid at 1? time prime lending rate charged by the State Bank of India. ( 13 ) THUS, learned arbitrator was fully justified in ignoring the contract term. I may only note that HUDCO has not disputed that the claimant was a small scale unit. However, there is merit in a part of the objection raised by HUDCO. It was urged that interest could not be awarded with effect from 25. 9. 1995. Interest could be awarded from the date when bill was raised. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for HUDCO has shown document at Page 61 in record of the arbitrator contained in Volume VI. The same shows that the bill was raised by the contractor on 26/3/1998. Learned counsel for the contractor states that a bill was raised in the year 1995; but learned counsel has not been able to show any document to this effect. Till bill was raised, no amount could be paid. I accordingly modify the award pertaining to claim 1 (b), in that, set aside the interest awarded in sum of Rs. 3,88,470. 00 for the reason the interest has been granted with effect from 25. 9. 1995. ( 15 ) I substitute the award by directing that on the sum of Rs. 3,98,428/- (being the supply component of the final amount held payable by the learned arbitrator, being Rs. 4,98,035/-), interest @18% per annum stands awarded to the contractor with effect from 26. 3. 1998 till date of award. 9. 1995. ( 15 ) I substitute the award by directing that on the sum of Rs. 3,98,428/- (being the supply component of the final amount held payable by the learned arbitrator, being Rs. 4,98,035/-), interest @18% per annum stands awarded to the contractor with effect from 26. 3. 1998 till date of award. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for HUDCO stated that in view of Ex. P-1 being contractor's letter dated 23. 9. 1998 wherein contractor had stated that apart from claim under final bill, he had no other claim, award pertaining to other claims has to be set aside. Learned arbitrator has noted Ex. P-1 but has opined that the same did not give a free handle to the petitioner to delay finalisation of the contract indefinitely. In that view of the matter, I find that learned arbitrator has given good reasons as to why contractor was not to be bound by his declaratory undertaking as recorded in Ex. P-1. ( 17 ) IT has to be noted that HUDCO did not finalise the dues of the contractor, requiring the contractor to go in for arbitration which commenced in the year 2000. 32. The objection predicated on Ex. P-1 is accordingly not accepted. ( 18 ) OBJECTION to claim No. 2 was predicated on clause 2. 10. 3. 1 of the agreement. For the reasons noted above wherein I have upheld the award pertaining to claim 1 (b), objection to claim no. 2 is without any merit. Claim No. 3 was rejected. Contractor has not filed any objections. ( 19 ) ON claim No. 4, learned arbitrator has recompensed the contractor towards watch and ward charges spent by the contractor from September 1996 onwards for a period of 19 months. ( 20 ) IN view of the finding of fact that the contractor completed the works in September 1995 and due to non availability of load, DG Sets could not be tested, learned arbitrator's finding that defect liability period came to an end in September 1996 has already been upheld as a reasonable finding by me. Inevitable corollary is that the contractor would be entitled to the amount spent by him towards watch and ward for the reason HUDCO is in default in not taking over the site. ( 21 ) CLAIM No. 5, 7 and 8 have been rejected. Inevitable corollary is that the contractor would be entitled to the amount spent by him towards watch and ward for the reason HUDCO is in default in not taking over the site. ( 21 ) CLAIM No. 5, 7 and 8 have been rejected. On claim No. 6, learned arbitrator has recompensed the contractor for expenditure incurred towards extension of bank guarantee. ( 22 ) IN view of the fact that I have upheld the award insofar it determines the defect liability period, requiring contractor to have the bank guarantee extended beyond defect liability period was obviously unjustified. I see no infirmity in the award when the same recompenses the contractor. ( 23 ) THE OMP accordingly stands disposed of dismissing the objections save and except relating to claim 1 (b ). Award dated 22. 5. 2001 is modified in terms of para 28 above. No costs.