ORDER : Aruyn Kumar, J. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 28.02.1958 for execution of certain civil work. Disputes arose between the parties in relation to the said agreement and the respondent-contractor sought appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement. In December, 1961 the contractor filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing the agreement and appointment of an Arbitrator. After the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'Board') filed its written statement, the petition under Section 20 filed by the contractor came to be dismissed for default. Even a restoration application was dismissed. On 24.08.1966, a fresh application for restoration was filed which was allowed on 16.01.1968. The case was again dismissed on 27.03.1968 and an application for restoration was filed on 22.04.1968. The case was restored on 18.01.1981. On 16.04.1986, an order was passed for filing the agreement in the Court to enable the court to appoint an Arbitrator. On 23.09.1986, the Additional District Judge, Gwalior dealing with this case passed an order appointing President of the Cantonment Board, Gwalior as an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement. This was followed by several changes of the Arbitrators. Ultimately, on 10.12.1997, Mr.R.P.Tripathi was appointed as Arbitrator. Mr.R.P.Tripathi made his Award on 10.09.1998. The respondent-contractor applied for making the Award rule of court. On 12.02.1999, the court passed an order making the Award rule of court and a decree in terms of the Award was passed. The respondent - contractor applied for execution of the decree on 14.10.1999. Notice thereof was issued to the Board. On 24.11.1999, the Board appointed one Mr. M.P. Agrawal as its advocate and requested him to intimate the status of the case. On 7.12.1999, the advocate applied for certified copy of the decree. The copy was ready on 23.6.2000 and was taken delivery of by the advocate. The appeal was filed on the same day. However, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The present appeal is directed against the said judgment and decree of the High Court. 2. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the parties on all the issues involved, including that of condonation of delay. However, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The present appeal is directed against the said judgment and decree of the High Court. 2. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the parties on all the issues involved, including that of condonation of delay. On the question of condonation of delay, we find that there is justifiable explanation given by the Board to make out the case for condonation of delay. It has been submitted on behalf of the Board that it was not having knowledge of proceedings which took place in the trial court on the question of making the Award rule of Court. Their advocate did not keep them informed about the proceedings. Ultimately, on the execution application being filed, they took steps to appoint another advocate who informed them about the position of the case and applied for certified copy. The appeal was filed on the day the certified copy was made ready and available to the Board. 3. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it to be a fit case for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the impugned order of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of being barred by limitation is accordingly set aside. 4. Since it is an old matter where the proceedings were started in the year 1961, we think it appropriate to hear and dispose of the case on merits as well instead of remanding the case to the High Court. 5. Coming to the merits of the matter our attention has been drawn to the copy of the Award on record. Claims No. 1 to 7 are for small amounts. The first claim is for Rs. 9215.37p on account of work done under the contract which has been allowed by the Arbitrator. Rest of the claims are for very small amounts except claim No.7 which is for supply of materials for Rs. 11353/-. The said claim has also been allowed by the Arbitrator. The total amount allowed under claim Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 (Claim No.6 has been declined) comes to Rs. 26513.37p. Under claim No.8 the contractor claimed interest on due payments at rates fixed by the Reserve Bank of India on bank lending and loss of business. The claim under this head was for Rs. 55,45,223.00p. The total amount allowed under claim Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 (Claim No.6 has been declined) comes to Rs. 26513.37p. Under claim No.8 the contractor claimed interest on due payments at rates fixed by the Reserve Bank of India on bank lending and loss of business. The claim under this head was for Rs. 55,45,223.00p. On this claim the Arbitrator has observed as under: "Looking to the justified claims of the claimant and pendency of the matter since 1958 and court's order for appointment of Arbitrator at the distant date, I consider it just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 25 lacs (Twenty five lacs only) in full and final settlement of the claim. The above sum has been awarded looking to the totality of the circumstances and material on record. The above sum includes interest on various claims, due to the claimant, till the date of publishing of this award." 6. The Arbitrator has gone to award interest at the rate of 14% per annum till realisation of the amount awarded from the date of Award. To say the least, the award of Rs. 25 lacs under Claim No.8 shocks the conscience of this Court and it is such kind of awards which bring bad name to arbitration in this country. In somewhat similar circumstances, this Court observed in State of J & K and Another v. Dev Dutt Pandit , (1999) 7 SCC 339 , as under :- "What happened in the present case is certainly a paradoxical situation which should be avoided. Total contract is for Rs. 12,23,500. When the contractor has done less than 50% of the work the contract is terminated. He has been paid Rs. 5,71,900. In a Section 20 petition he makes a claim of Rs. 39,47,000 and before the arbitrator the claim is inflated to Rs. 63,61,000. He gets away with Rs. 20,08,000 with interest at the rate of 10% per annum and penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Such type of arbitration becomes subject of witticism and do not help the institution of arbitration. Rather it brings a bad name to the arbitration process as a whole." 7. In the present case, it has to be noted that Claim No.6 regarding loss of profit due to prolongation was for Rs. Such type of arbitration becomes subject of witticism and do not help the institution of arbitration. Rather it brings a bad name to the arbitration process as a whole." 7. In the present case, it has to be noted that Claim No.6 regarding loss of profit due to prolongation was for Rs. 1750/- and the same has been held to be not established resulting in rejection of the claim by the Arbitrator. Having done this, the Arbitrator has gone to award a sum of Rs. 25 lacs towards loss of business and on account of the fact that the matter remained pending since 1958. While observing that the matter remained pending since 1958 and passing the blame of this on the Board, the Arbitrator failed to notice that the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of an Arbitrator was moved by the respondent-contractor in 1961 which was dismissed on default at least on three occasions and was finally restored in the year 1981 and a reference to arbitration was made in the year 1986. Another strange thing which we notice from the record is that in the claim petition, there is no claim for Rs. 55,45,223.00 which the 8. Arbitrator has dealt with under Claim No.8. As already observed and to say the least, the award of the Arbitrator on this point shocks the conscience of the Court. At this juncture, Mr.P.S.Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Board made an offer which in our view is quite reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to this offer, the Board is willing to pay the sum of Rs. 26,513.37 with interest from 18.01.1981 to 10.09.1998, i.e., the date of the Award. He has further offered to pay interest at a reasonable rate till date of payment on the said amount. To put an end to this old litigation, we consider it appropriate that an Order is passed in terms of the suggestion made by Mr.P.S.Mishra, learned senior counsel. Accordingly, we modify the Award so far as Claim No.8 is concerned. We pass a decree in favour of the respondent-contractor in the sum of Rs. 26,513.37 along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 18.01.1981 upto 10.09.1998, i.e., the date of the Award. Accordingly, we modify the Award so far as Claim No.8 is concerned. We pass a decree in favour of the respondent-contractor in the sum of Rs. 26,513.37 along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 18.01.1981 upto 10.09.1998, i.e., the date of the Award. After 10.09.1998 till the date of payment, the rate of interest shall be as awarded by the Arbitrator, i.e., 14% per annum simple interest on the principal amount awarded. The Award under Claim No.8 stands rejected. 9. Mr. P.S.Mishra has further fairly offered that the amount calculated as per this Order will be paid through a bank draft to be drawn in favour of the respondent-contractor which will be handed over to Mrs. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-contractor within four weeks from today. This appeal is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.