ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13-10-2003 passed by XIII Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 9/03 whereby the objections filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (which shall be referred hereinafter as an "Act") was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the award was passed against the Appellant on 14-2-2003 whereby the Appellant was held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 27,26,915/- along with interest @ Rs. 16% p.a. w.e.f. 1-7-2002. Against the said award objections were filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the Act, wherein it was alleged that the award is illegal and deserves to be set aside. Objections were contested by the Respondents. After hearing the parties learned Court below dismissed the objections filed by the Appellant, against which present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that as per terms of agreement no Arbitrator was appointed, therefore, there was no justification on the part of learned Court below in passing the impugned order, it is submitted that Respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to pass the award, as Respondent No. 2 was never appointed as Arbitrator either by the Court or by the Appellant. It is submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal constituted in the case was not in accordance with the agreement between the parties and as such whole proceedings of the arbitration before Arbitrator is null and void and without any authority of law. It is submitted that the award was not on requisite stamp paper and also not as per provisions of Stamp Act. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Bharat Bhushan Bansal v. U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 899 wherein the clause of agreement not mentioned that any dispute could be referred to arbitration of managing director nor spelling any duty on him to record evidence or hear both parties before deciding question before him, Hon'ble Apex Court held that Managing Director was more in category of expert for deciding matters pertaining to contract. It was also held that clause did not contemplate any arbitration. It was also held that clause did not contemplate any arbitration. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned Counsel submits that the appeal filed by the Appellant be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below be set aside. In alternate learned Counsel submits that the interest awarded is on higher side. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra Reddy (2007) 2 SCC 720 : AIR 2007 SC 817 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when arbitration clause exists in the agreement and proceeded on that basis, and thereafter raised the plea of no arbitration clause. In this case interest awarded @ 18% p.a. by the Arbitrator for pre-arbitration period for pendente lite was reduced to 9%. 4. Learned Counsel for Respondents submit that the objections raised by the counsel for the Appellant is of no substance. It is submitted that right from beginning Appellant treated Respondent No. 2 as Arbitrator and participated in the proceedings. It is submitted that written arguments were also submitted by the Appellant addressing that the same is submitted before Arbitrator. It is submitted that at this juncture, Appellant cannot be allowed to take 'U' turn and to say that Respondent No. 2 was not competent to act as an Arbitrator. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the Appellant be dismissed. 5. From perusal of the record it is evident that contract of construction was given to the Appellant long back. There was a clause in the agreement which relates to settlement of disputes, arbitration, which reads as under: All disputes and differences of any kind whether arisen out of or in connection with the contract or the carrying out of the work (whether during the progress of the work or after its completion and whether before or after determination, abandonment or breach of the contract) shall be referred to and settled by the architects shall state their decision in writing. The decision of the architects with respect to any of the excepted matters shall be final and without appeal as stated in clause No. 32 but if the contractor be dissatisfied with the decision of the architects on any other matter, the question of dispute of any kind (except any or the excepted matters) or as to the withholding by the architects of any payment to which the contractor may claim to be entitled, then and in any such case, the contractor shall within 28 days after receiving notice to such decision give a written notice to the employer requiring that such matters in dispute be arbitrated upon. Such written notice shall specify the matter which are in dispute or difference of which such written notice has been given and no other shall be and is hereby to be referred to the arbitration and final decision of a single arbitrator or the arbitration of two arbitrators one to be appointed by each party, which arbitrator shall before taking upon themselves the burden or reference appoint an Umpire. The qualification of the arbitrator/arbitrators shall be (A) fellow of the institution of Engineers India or (B) fellow of the Indian Institute of Architects or (C) Member of the Institute of the Surveyors (India). 6. From perusal of the record it is evident that right from beginning Appellant appeared before Respondent No. 2 treating him as Arbitrator and participated in the proceedings. So far as the law laid down in the matter of Bharat Bhushan Bansal AIR 1999 SC 899 (supra) is concerned, is based on the Arbitration Act, 1940, while in the present case Act of 1996 is applicable. In the matter of Parson Roy v. The Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority AIR 1988 SC 205 (Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that where though a party is award from the beginning that by reason of some disability the matter is legally incapable of being submitted to arbitration, participates in arbitration proceedings without protest and fully avails of the entire arbitration proceedings and then when he sees that the award has gone against him comes forward to challenge the whole of the arbitration proceedings as without jurisdiction on the ground of a known disability, the same cannot be allowed. This principal applies both before and after making of the award. This principal applies both before and after making of the award. The principle is that a party shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold simultaneously. Long participation and acquiescence in the proceeding preclude such a party from contending that the proceedings were without jurisdiction. 7. After taking into consideration all the factual aspects of the case and the conduct of the Appellant and also the fact that in compliance of the order dated 2-12-2003 a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- was deposited by the Appellant and again in compliance of the order dated 8-5-2004 a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deposited by the Appellant, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in dismissing the objections filed by the Appellant. 8. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the only relief which can be granted to the Appellant is to grant one month's time to pay the entire amount after adjusting the amount which has already been paid, without any interest. In case Appellant fails to pay the awarded amount within a period of one month, then Appellant shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per month instead of 18% per month. If Appellant again fails to pay the entire amount along with interest within a period of six months, then the Appellant shall be liable to pay the amount along with interest as mentioned in the impugned order. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. CC as per rules.