ORDER Sunil Hali, J. 1. For providing fencing to certain installations at Nagrota, a Contract Agreement No. GE (P)-18/1922-93 was entered into with the claimant on 18th August, 1992. The date of completion of the said work was fixed as 26th February, 1993. The contract was completed in the year, 1997, for which claimant had sought release of payment. The Petitioners refuted the claim of the claimant indicating that certain works had yet to be completed. The dispute was raised by claimant in this behalf and the matter was sought to be referred to the Arbitrator by invoking condition 70 of IAFW-2249, forming part of the contract. 2. On a reference being made, the Chief Engineer, Udhampur Zone was appointed as Arbitrator, who entered into reference on 28-1-2006. After calling upon the parties and perusing the record, he passed the award in favour of the claimant. This award has been questioned by the present Petitioner in this Court under Section 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The pleas raised by the Petitioners in this petition are as under: (a) That time barred claim was referred to the Arbitrator for arbitration. (b) That while awarding compensation for loss of suffering due to blockage of payment, work done was beyond the terms of the contract and was not arbitral. (c) That Arbitrator has not given reasoned award as recorded under condition 70 of the General conditions of the contract. 4. The Respondent in its objections has stated that the learned Arbitrator after analyzing every stipulation of the contract agreement has awarded the compensation to the claimant and each of the claim has been discussed on the touchstone of the various clauses of the Contract Agreement, which is clearly reflected in the proceedings concluded by the learned Arbitrator. Regarding the plea of limitation, it is stated that the contract in question was completed by the claimant in the year 1997, and the same was not finalized by the Union of India. Neither the completion certificate was issued, nor was any payment of the final bill made to the claimant. It is stated that the Arbitrator has passed reasoned award, which is clearly reflected by the award itself. While passing reasoned/speaking award, the Arbitrator has only indicated his thought process, which is requirement under law. 5. Neither the completion certificate was issued, nor was any payment of the final bill made to the claimant. It is stated that the Arbitrator has passed reasoned award, which is clearly reflected by the award itself. While passing reasoned/speaking award, the Arbitrator has only indicated his thought process, which is requirement under law. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The grounds for setting aside the arbitral award are contained under Section 34 of the Act. The said Section, in so far as relevant is being reproduced below: 34. Application for setting aside arbitral award. (1) .... (2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only If-- (a) the party making the application furnishes proof that- (i) a party was under some incapacity; or (ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subject it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or (iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration: Provided that, if the decision on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or (v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or (b) the Court finds that; (i) the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force; or (ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of the State.... 7. 7. A perusal of Sub-clause (iv) indicates that an award can be set aside, if it deals with a dispute not contemplated by or it does not fall within the terms of the submission to Arbitration or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to the arbitration. It concedes two possibilities, i.e., if the dispute raised is not traced to the stipulation of the contract or reference made to the Arbitrator for decision is beyond the scope of the terms of the contract. While awarding the claim No. 3 learned Arbitrator has awarded compensation to the claimant on account of withholding of the money which was due to him. The compensation has been awarded as damages suffered due to blockage of payment. These damages have been claimed under Section 73 of the Contract Act as indicated in the award. 8. A party is entitled to compensation or damage on account of breach of contract and the aggrieved party is to be compensated for any loss or damages caused to him. In terms of the said provision, if the contract has not been concluded, the aggrieved party is to be compensated for such loss. In the present case, it is not the case of the claimant that contract was not concluded, but only payment was withheld without disclosing any reasons for breach of agreement. 9. While awarding this compensation the provision which has been invoked in the present case is Section 73 of the Contract Act. For reference, Section 73 is quoted herein below: 73. Compensation for loss of damage caused by breach of contract. When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation, for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract.- When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract Explanation: In estimating the loss of damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken into account. 10. A party is required to prove the following conditions before it becomes entitled to compensation: (a) Where a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby. (b) The party seeking claim of the damage has to prove by positive evidence of actual damage caused due to breach. (c) That the compensation claimed should not be remote on account of indirect loss,. (d) The compensation to be awarded must directly arise out of contract and it should not be as a result of indirect or remote loss, caused due to such breach. 11. In the present case, the claimant was entitled to receive payment after completion of the work. Failure to make payment on due date would entitle the injured party to receive the principal amount plus interest. This would be the amount which is payable directly on account of breach of terms of agreement. Consequent loss which would occur to the claimant as a result of withholding of the money, is indirect loss and no compensation is payable for the same. Other aspect of the matter is that while awarding this compensation, the learned Arbitrator has not indicated the basis on which such amount has been assessed. The learned Arbitrator has already awarded the amount payable to the claimant on account of work done by him and also awarded interest on such amount. Awarding of compensation and damages on this account by the Arbitrator is beyond the scope of the contract. 12. The learned Arbitrator has already awarded the amount payable to the claimant on account of work done by him and also awarded interest on such amount. Awarding of compensation and damages on this account by the Arbitrator is beyond the scope of the contract. 12. Regarding second contention raised by the Petitioner that the claim is time barred and according to the Respondents cause to refer it to the Arbitrator arose in the year 1992, whereas reference has been made in the year 2006. In order to appreciate this question, it is necessary to examine certain facts. After completion of the contract in 1997, the Respondent/claimant had asked for payment for the work done. The Petitioner is stated to have not taken any decision in the matter. According to the claimant plea of limitation can be invoked only if the contract in question was concluded by issuance of completion certificate and payment of final bills, which as per admitted facts has not been done by the Union of India. It be also seen that according to the claimant the contract had not been discharged by performance or by accord. Where the contract has been discharged by performance, it is mix question of fact and law. If there is dispute regarding that question, this is the matter which is arbitral. This is issue which is required to be decided by the arbitrator. No such plea has been taken by the Petitioner before the Arbitrator, as such, contention raised by the Petitioner on this account cannot be sustained. Reliance in this regard be placed on a judgment, reported in 2006 (4) Supreme 534: AIR 2006 SC 2422, Groupe Chimique Tunisien v. Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corpn., wherein the Supreme Court has held as under: In regard to limitation, the Petitioner submitted that having regard to the acknowledgments contained in the series of letters written by Respondent requesting for time and the acknowledgments contained in the balance-sheets where these amounts are shown as 'due and outstanding' the Petitioner's claim is not barred by limitation. It is, however, unnecessary to examine this aspect as the learned Counsel for the Respondent fairly conceded that this is a question which can be examined by the Arbitral Tribunal in the event of a reference to arbitration being made. It is now well-settled that the limitation is an issue that can be considered and decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. It is, however, unnecessary to examine this aspect as the learned Counsel for the Respondent fairly conceded that this is a question which can be examined by the Arbitral Tribunal in the event of a reference to arbitration being made. It is now well-settled that the limitation is an issue that can be considered and decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. 13. Last contention of the Petitioner is that award passed by the Arbitrator is not reasoned award. However, while scanning through the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, it is visible that the award has been passed after discussing each and every claim and therefore, the plea of the Petitioner that the impugned order is not a reasoned one, is without any basis and cannot be accepted. 14. In view of the above, I modify the award to the extent that claim No. 3 awarded by the learned Arbitrator is set aside and all other claims awarded by the Arbitrator are upheld. Claimant is entitled to interest @ 8% from the date of passing of the award till its realization.