Judgment : 1. The Petitioner has challenged an Award dated 3 July 2006 passed by the sole Arbitrator appointed as per the provisions of the Contract between the parties as there arose dispute with regard to the due payment for the work done by the Respondent. 2. The operative part of the Award is as under : “1) The Respondents (M/s. MTNL) shall pay to the Claimants Rs. 11,26,478.57 (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Eight and Fifty Seven paise only) to the Claimants (M/s.Ram Builders). 2) Over and above the amount mentioned in para (1) of the Award the Respondents shall pay to the Claimants interest at the rate of 12% from the respective dates of payment to the date of Award. 3) The Respondents shall pay to the Claimants a further sum of Rs. 2,65,082/(Rupees Two lakhs sixty five thousand eighty eight two only) with 12% interest from 30.9.2000 to the Claimants upto the date of Award. 4) It the amounts as mentioned and calculated as given in para (1), (2), (3) if paid within 90 days no further future interest shall be payable. Failing which the future interest at the rate of 18% from the date of Award till the date of payment shall be paid. 5) Parties to bear their own cost.” 3. The Petitioner is a Central Government Corporation and Public Sector Undertaking. The Respondent is a contractor carrying on the construction work of reinstatement of trenches. The Petitioner appointed the Respondent for carrying out the work of reinstatement of cable trenches and allied works in view of the tender for the year 19971999. An agreement was accordingly entered into on 12.11.1997. The various work orders were issued during this period for the same, for the different area offices of the Petitioner. The Respondent carried out the work under the supervision and instructions from time to time and accordingly submitted the bills and received part payment also. 4. The Petitioner withheld certain bills/last final bills, because of alleged noncompliance of terms and conditions; and for submission of documentary evidence in respect of the completion of work; and mainly on the ground of pendency of Vigilance (CBI) investigations. 4. The Petitioner withheld certain bills/last final bills, because of alleged noncompliance of terms and conditions; and for submission of documentary evidence in respect of the completion of work; and mainly on the ground of pendency of Vigilance (CBI) investigations. The Petitioner's case was that by letter dated 2.8.1999 the Vigilance Department informed the Petitioner's office that 41 bills of RI work carried out by various contractors, including bills of the Respondent in Mumbai were held up for investigation. It is alleged that the works have not been carried out by the Respondent as well as by other contractors. The Respondent replied and resisted the same by letter dated 4.2.2000 stating that they have already completed the work long back. They objected to the order to reenter private party to dig the trenches all over. Admittedly, the Petitioner did not pay the bills raised by the Respondent in view of this. The criminal cases are still pending. 5. The Respondent invoked the arbitration clause to adjudicate the dispute. The Court ultimately on the Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Arbitration Act”) filed by the Petitioner appointed a sole Arbitrator. Both the parties appeared before the Arbitrator. The statement of claims and rejoinder were filed accordingly. The claimants have filed about six claims as payments towards 17 bills were due. The other claims were of interest, refund of earnest money and security deposit for the bills, release of three Bank Guarantee and 21% interest and the rest of the Arbitration. 6. The Petitioner objected to the jurisdiction in view of the pendency of the criminal matter as registered by the CBI against the officers of the MTNL and some contractors. The Petitioner also submitted that, they were unable to file counter claim and/or defend the case properly and thereby submitted to stay the arbitration proceedings till outcome of CBI cases. 7. The Respondent admitted number of pending bills, but contended that they are not bound to pay in view of pendency of the CBI matter. Admittedly such plea of Respondent was not accepted by the High Court while appointing the Arbitrator. The statement is also made that most of the officers against whom enquiry was initiated, have been acquitted. It is specifically contended that there is no case pending against the Respondent/claimant. Admittedly such plea of Respondent was not accepted by the High Court while appointing the Arbitrator. The statement is also made that most of the officers against whom enquiry was initiated, have been acquitted. It is specifically contended that there is no case pending against the Respondent/claimant. The Respondent also contended that they submitted the bill on the basis of the valid certificates based upon the work done issued by the concerned officers. In the present case, only bill No.13 was mentioned as recorded by the learned Arbitrator. 8. Admittedly the plea of Respondent was not accepted by the High Court while appointing the Arbitrator. The statement is also made that most of the officers against whom enquiry was initiated, have been acquitted. It is specifically contended that there is no case pending against the Respondent/claimant. The Respondent also contended that they submitted the bill on the basis of the certificates based upon the work done. In the present case, only bill No.13 was mentioned as recorded by the learned Arbitrator. 9. The Petitioner's officers were never arrested and suspended except some of them were transferred. The pendency of those criminal matters, in no way, sufficient to halt the arbitration proceedings being civil matter and specifically when the High Court appointed the Arbitrator in spite of the objection so raised. The Arbitrator, therefore, has no choice but to consider and deal with the matter in accordance with law and therefore rejected the preliminary objection rightly. 10. The Arbitrator, considering the evidence so led by the parties including the Respondents/claimants in support of their cases and specially the no objection certificates, orders of release and security of deposit for the relevant year, accepted the case of the claimants/Respondent as the Petitioner unable to destroy the same in cross-examination. 11. The Petitioner's case, through the witnesses, that the certificates issued by the earlier officer of MTNL, cannot be relied upon was not accepted. The Petitioner's officers admitted the withholding of the amount due to CBI enquiry. The learned Arbitrator, after considering the evidence/witness of the Petitioner held that “I am relying on the evidence of Mr. Gupta who is the highest officer giving evidence in which he has admitted the bill for payment in spite of excavation being 30 cm instead of 40 cms. The learned Arbitrator, after considering the evidence/witness of the Petitioner held that “I am relying on the evidence of Mr. Gupta who is the highest officer giving evidence in which he has admitted the bill for payment in spite of excavation being 30 cm instead of 40 cms. From this it is evident that change in the FMR are possible because the contractor is paid on actual measurement taken by MTNL staff. His contentions that the bill was revised after his checking is found not to be true as per his evidence.”. 12. The Arbitrator is also right by observing that the conditions of the contract do not give right to the Petitioner after the work to reopen during maintenance period. The direction so given to dig out or trench in a private property was also rightly rejected. The contract, as noted above, came to an end except the arbitration clauses. 13. The Arbitrator has also held that all the FMR are need to be considered along with conditions of contract (Clause 12) of right of Engineer in charge to change specification, but it was subject to clause 16 which provides for prior notice be given before covering the work. The entire work as carried out was under the supervision of MTNL staff of Engineering gathered and it was duly certified also. Some payment of bills are not in dispute. The Arbitrator has also dealt with action of Petitioner to withhold the excess amount. After taking note of the material and calculation, the specific finding is given that the MTNL has withheld the amount in excess than required. 14 So far as Clause No.29 is concerned, it is nowhere permit the Petitioner to withhold the due and payable amount except as provided. Admittedly, withholding was without any due notice and the same was based upon the investigation as recorded above. The said clause nowhere permits and/or provide such withholding on such ground. The amount due and payable was neither retention money or performance guarantee amount. No notice was given for lien. The withholding of such amount at such stage, therefore, has been rightly held to be impermissible. Admittedly, though Clause 29 was invoked without qualifying and notifying to the contractor the reasons and intention of invoking the same, there is nothing on record to point out that they have specifically invoked clause 29 prior to the invocation of arbitration. 15. The withholding of such amount at such stage, therefore, has been rightly held to be impermissible. Admittedly, though Clause 29 was invoked without qualifying and notifying to the contractor the reasons and intention of invoking the same, there is nothing on record to point out that they have specifically invoked clause 29 prior to the invocation of arbitration. 15. There was nothing on record to show that any complaint from the owner in whose property the work of reinstatement was received or made. The Arbitrator therefore ultimately held that the Petitioner has no right for trial trenches after allowing the contractor to cover it. There is nothing to show that there was any defects or complaint. There was no right remain to reopen once the bills were passed and sent to Account Section and the period of maintenance was also over. The doubt/suspicion, even if any, should have been properly dealt with after giving notice to the contractor at the relevant earliest time. The Arbitrator, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the Respondent/claimant would be entitled to full payment and interest thereon as no case falls within the ambit of Clause 29 as contended. 16. The Arbitrator has also observed inaction on the part of Petitioner's officer not to provide and give certificate for refund of security deposit basically when the work was measured, passed and paid earlier. The Arbitrator has arrived at the conclusion after recording and dealing with the respective bills and the interest, at the rate of 12% p.a. The respective claims so discussed and awarded and as there was no counter challenge, including grant of interest needs no interference in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 17. Admittedly, all the relevant and concerned officers were acquitted and/or were never suspended at the relevant time and/or till this date. The certificate and the documents signed and supported by them and as the work was done under their supervision just cannot be reopened at the instance of MTNL/Petitioner with an intention only to deny the due amount payable to the Respondent for the work done. 18. It is made clear that the confirmation of the Award in no way takes away and/or deny the right of the Petitioner to take appropriate steps and/or action in case the pendency of criminal enquiry/investigation support their case and/or cases against the Respondent. 18. It is made clear that the confirmation of the Award in no way takes away and/or deny the right of the Petitioner to take appropriate steps and/or action in case the pendency of criminal enquiry/investigation support their case and/or cases against the Respondent. This is just a stage of confirmation of the award already passed. The vague allegations of pendency of investigation in similarly situated matter/contract/bills cannot be the reason to deny the legitimate right of the Respondent. 19 It is also necessary to note that there is evidence on record to show that it was informed before the Arbitrator that none of the 17 bills under the dispute have been referred to CBI investigation. The bills were duly forwarded to the Accounts Department for the payment. The work was duly done under the supervision and recorded in the measurement book and based upon which recommended for the payment. Merely raising some doubt or suspicion, in the facts and circumstances, cannot be the reason to withhold such amount. 20. The withholding of the amount beyond the terms and conditions and basically in view of the CBI enquiry, which was never part of terms and conditions of the contract. Before withholding such amount, a prior notice should have been given. The withholding of payment because of CBI enquiry in no way falls within the ambit of Clause 29. The withholding itself is beyond the scope of terms and conditions and clauses so referred. The whole action is unjust and illegal and, therefore, the amount so awarded with interest need no interference. The reliance on Union of India v. Saraswat Trading Agency and others, (2009) 16 SCC 504 , in no way, sufficient to interfere with the Award so passed. 21. No specific ground was raised to challenge the right of interest and grant of interest at any stage as awarded. The power to award the interest cannot be in dispute in view of the specific provisions of the Arbitration Act. There is no contra agreement referred and/or pointed out. [Mc.Dermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. And ors. (2006) 11 SCC 181 ] 22. The Arbitrator, in a given case, awarded the nil amount for certain claims, as the Respondent failed to support the same. It is also relevant to note that the Arbitrator has considered and directed to retain the amount of Rs. [Mc.Dermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. And ors. (2006) 11 SCC 181 ] 22. The Arbitrator, in a given case, awarded the nil amount for certain claims, as the Respondent failed to support the same. It is also relevant to note that the Arbitrator has considered and directed to retain the amount of Rs. 71,150/for any decision of the CBI. Therefore, even the case and submission of the Petitioner has been recorded and considered by the Arbitrator and so also the amount of Rs.15,000/as costs towards liability to take the trial trenches. Therefore taking overall view of the matter, the Award so passed cannot be stated to be bad and/or contrary to the law and the record. 23. The grant of interest, therefore, in the present facts and circumstances at the rate of 12% (simple interest) also need no interference as it cannot be stated to be exorbitant and/or unreasonable. 24. So far as future interest is concerned, in the present facts and circumstances, I am inclined to restrict the same at the rate of 12% per annum (simple interest) till the date of realisation. The Award is modified to the extent of future interest restricting it to 12% instead of 18%. 25. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and as the Award so passed is well within the frame work of law and the record and based upon the rival submissions and case made out by the parties and as in the interest of the Petitioner, I see there is no reason to interfere with the it. The Award cannot be stated to be perverse. There is no illegality. The view so taken is possible and plausible view even on the interpretation of Clauses so referred and dealt with, read with the terms and conditions of the contract. No case to interfere with the impugned award. 26. In the result, the Award is modified only to the extent of grant of future interest restricting it to 12% instead of 18% per annum (simple interest). The rest of the Award is maintained. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.