JUDGMENT : 1. The issue involved in this case is in regard to the award covered by the Arbitration Act, 1940. The arbitrator has awarded pendente lite interest ignoring an express bar in the contract regarding award of interest. There are two decisions of this Court which have taken the view that the arbitrator can award pendente lite interest. They are Port of Calcutta v. Engineers-Decided On : -Space-Age, (1996) 1 SCC 516 ] followed in Madnani Construction Corpn. (P) Ltd. V. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 549 . 2. In two other decisions, that is, Sayeed Ahmed & Co. v. State of U.P., (2009) 12 SCC 26 and Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions v. Railways, (2010) 8 Scale 293 , this Court has expressed a doubt whether the decision in Engineers-Decided On : -Space-Age [Port of Calcutta v. Engineers-Space-Age, (1996) 1 SCC 516 is good law in view of the Constitution Bench judgments in Irrigation Deptt., State of Orissa v. G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508 and Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division v. N.C. Budharaj, (2001) 2 SCC 721 , which held that the arbitrator had the jurisdiction and authority to award interest in regard to three periods, namely, pre-reference period, pendente lite and future period, if there was no express bar in the contract regarding award of interest. However, this Court in Sayeed Ahmed & Co. [Sayeed Ahmed & Co. v. State of U.P., (2009) 12 SCC 26 and Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions [Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions v. Railways, (2010) 8 Scale 293 did not examine the matter further as those cases related to matters arising under the new Act, namely, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. In view of the above legal position, we refer this matter to a larger Bench for decision. Place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.