Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under section 39 of The Arbitration Act, 1940, is directed against the order dated 19.12.2000 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Dehradun in Miscellaneous Case No. 118 of 1997 (with Suit No. 538 of 1997) whereby said court has refused to set aside the award dated 31.05.1997 given by the Umpire, and the award has been made rule of the court with modification that in respect of claim no. 1 amount of Rs. 14,94,475/- awarded by the Umpire shall be calculated at the rate of 75%, and after calculation of the interest payable at the rate of 18% per annum till the date the award was given as directed by the Umpire, 6% per annum shall be paid during the pendency of the case before the trial court, and after the decision i.e. 19.12.2000, interest at the rate of 12% shall be paid on the awarded sum. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Brief facts, of the case are that claimant (present respondent) M/s Hitech Drilling Service India Limited (for short Hitech) entered into an agreement with Oil and Natural Gas Commission (for short ONGC) on 01.05.1991, whereby the claimant/respondent agreed to deploy a Land Drilling Rig for the drilling of oil and gas well. As per the agreement drilling operations were subject to directions of ONGC. The necessary equipments and personnel were to be provided by the claimant/respondent. The drilling operations included coring, fishing, testing etc. M/s Hitech (claimant/respondent) was obliged to provide and maintain at its cost the drilling unit, other equipments and materials. The depth of the well was to be specified by ONGC. In terms of Article 13.4 of the agreement if any hole was lost or damaged due to the negligence on the part of M/s Hitech it was the responsibility of said party to repair the damage and re-drill the hole at the same site or at the alternative site for which it would be paid only 50% of the full operating rate (i.e. 50% of Rs. 1,39,500/- per day). Under Article 18.1 ONGC was required to make payment to Hitech for the work done by it at the operating rates mentioned in Appendix-E to the agreement. Appendix D to the contract provided different rates applicable to different operations like “stand by time” or “non operating time” etc. 1,39,500/- per day). Under Article 18.1 ONGC was required to make payment to Hitech for the work done by it at the operating rates mentioned in Appendix-E to the agreement. Appendix D to the contract provided different rates applicable to different operations like “stand by time” or “non operating time” etc. In the case of fishing operations Article 18.4 (d) of the agreements provides that the payment for fishing shall be made at the rate of 75% of operating rate. The contract further provides that in case of movement of the drilling unit from one location to another, ONGC was obliged to pay necessary expenses for the same. At the end, Article 41 of the contract provided the Arbitration Clause. 4. Drilling operations were made in Dangewala-I and Langewala-II between the period 03.09.1991 to 06.09.1993. When the dispute arose as to the claims made by Hitech, in terms of contract Sri S.B. Kabra (nominated by Hitech) and Hon. Mr. Justice H.R. Khanna (nominated by ONGC) entered into arbitration proceedings. After considering pleadings, claims, counter claims and affidavits of the witnesses, their cross-examination, Hon. Mr. Justice H.R. Khanna in his award dated 16.07.1996 held that Hitech was entitled to recover Rs. 69,08,996/- of its claim and rejected the counter claim of ONGC. On the other hand, Sri S.B. Kabra gave separate award holding that besides the amount awarded by Justice Khanna, Hitech was further entitled to recover amount Rs. 1,05,75,505/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of the award. In view of the difference of findings given by the Arbitrator Hon. Mr. Justice R.S. Pathak (Retd.) Former Chief Justice of India was appointed Umpire vide order dated 03.12.1993. The parties agreed before the Umpire that already submitted pleadings and evidence before the two Arbitrators be read for the purposes of further proceedings. After hearing the parties, the Umpire gave the impugned award dated 31.05.1997 with reasons mentioned therefore. The concluding directions given in the impugned award dated 31.05.1997 given by the Umpire read as under:- i. Hitech is entitled to payment at 75% of the operating rate during the period of fishing operations from 5 January 1992 to 7 February 1992, in the original hole at Dangewala-I. In the result, Hitech is entitled to Rs. 14,94,476 under this head. ii. The claim for the period 7 February 1992 to 22 March 1992 cannot be entertained. 14,94,476 under this head. ii. The claim for the period 7 February 1992 to 22 March 1992 cannot be entertained. iii. Hitech is entitled to a payment of Rs. 41,66,040 on account of interlocating charges. iv. Hitech is entitled to payment at full operating rate from the level 2266 mtrs. to level 3329 mtrs. at Lang-II in addition to the depth thereafter. The exact amount can be quantified without difficulty from the records. v. Hitech is entitled to payment of Rs. 12, 48, 480/- as compensation for loss of downhole equipment. vi. Hitech is entitled to interest at 18% per annum on the amounts found due to it from the date on which the statement of claim was filed in this arbitration to the date on which payment is made by ONGC to it. vii. The parties shall bear their own costs of the arbitration. 5. The impugned award dated 31.05.1997 given by the Umpire was challenged by ONGC by moving application under section 30 of The Arbitration Act, 1940. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 118 of 1997. On the other hand, Hitech prayed that the impugned award be made rule of the court on which suit no. 538 of 1997 was registered and both were tried, heard and disposed of together by the impugned order dated 19.12.2000 passed by the trial court against which this appeal was filed by the ONGC. 6. Before further discussion this Court thinks it just and proper to quote relevant Articles of contract between ONGC and Hitech which are necessary to be kept in mind in deciding this appeal. 7. Clause (f) of Article 1.1 defines drilling operations as under:- Drilling operations:- All operations as generally understood for drilling Oil/Gas wells more particularly all the operations required to be carried out pursuant to this contract including (i) Coring (ii) Fishing (iii) Production testing etc. 8. Clause (m) of Article 5.1 provides about responsibilities of the Contractor as under:- Contractor will also be responsible for the followings:- (i) Mobilization of the Drilling unit and associated equipment to the port of Entry and its clearance at port. (ii) Transportation of the Drilling Unit and associated equipment to the Operator’s first drilling location. (iii) Rig up. (iv) Successful drilling operations to Target Depth. (v) Production testing (primary). (ii) Transportation of the Drilling Unit and associated equipment to the Operator’s first drilling location. (iii) Rig up. (iv) Successful drilling operations to Target Depth. (v) Production testing (primary). (vi) Rig down (vii) Transportation of Drilling unit and associated equipment to other location and rig up followed by subsequent operations. (viii) HSD for camp and transport vehicles will be provided by Operator on chargeable basis on request. (ix) To make arrangement for handling and storage of all the materials to be supplied by Operator at drill site. (x) To arrange potable/drinking water (xi) To provide medical facilities at camp and drill site, for all Operator’s personnel. (xii) To provide communication facilities between drill site, camp and Operators’ base. (xiii) Contractor shall provide the welding unit and gas cutting unit alongwith experienced/qualified welder for welding wellhead housing etc, as and when required. Special consumables like special welding electrodes will be provided by Operator. (xiv) Contractor will provide catering at site, camp etc. (xv) Fire fighting equipment, services and personnel for drill site and camp as per mines Act. (xvi) Complying with all laws (central and state) on safety, pollution control and environment management (Article 10.3, 10.8 and 24.7 of the Contract refer). (xvii) Security arrangement for drill site and camp. (xviii) Contractor will provide layout and load bearing drawings for design and preparation of foundation. Contractor shall provide the same within 30 days from date of issue of firm Letter of Intent i.e. from 22nd September, 1989. 9. Clause (b) of Article 10.1 further explains responsibilities of the Contractor as under:- Contractor shall at all times have full responsibility for control of the Drilling Unit and accordingly shall have final authority regarding the safety and operation of all systems and all personnel at drill site. The exercise of Contractor’s authority shall include but not be limited to making final decisions regarding well control measure, actions and procedures affecting the containment of existing or potential escape of pressure which may lead to blowouts, cratering or similar catastrophies. 10. Most important is Article 13.4 in the contract for the purposes of this case which provides regarding liability of the operator and clarifies as to when ONGC would be required to pay 50% of the operating rate to the contractor in case of his negligence. 10. Most important is Article 13.4 in the contract for the purposes of this case which provides regarding liability of the operator and clarifies as to when ONGC would be required to pay 50% of the operating rate to the contractor in case of his negligence. Operator shall be liable for the cost of regaining control of any wild well including a well which suffered a blow out as well as the cost of removal of debris and shall indemnify Contractor for any such cost. In the event the hole is lost or damaged because of the negligence of Contractor, and/or failure of Contractor’s equipment it shall be Contractor’s sole responsibility to repair such damage or to redrill the hole in the same well or an alternate well to the depth at which such hole was lost at a rate equal to 50% (fifty percent) of the operating rate. However, Contractor’s liability for compensating such charges or losses shall be limited to re-performing the work at the afore mentioned reduced Operating Rate. 11. Article 18.3 relates Operating Rate and provides as under:- Contractor shall be paid at a rate (the “Operating Rate”) per 24 hour day, for all operating time. The operating rate shall be payable from the time the Drilling unit spuds the well under this Contract and continue to be payable as long as the said well is being drilled until completions of drilling. Appendix “D” of this contract refers. 12. Next important is clause (d) of Article 18.4 which relates payment during fishing and reads as under:- Payment during fishing operation shall be made at the rate of 75% of the operating rate. 13. Operating/stand by rates are given in Appendix D and Appendix E to the contract. 14. Appendix “D” of this contract refers. 12. Next important is clause (d) of Article 18.4 which relates payment during fishing and reads as under:- Payment during fishing operation shall be made at the rate of 75% of the operating rate. 13. Operating/stand by rates are given in Appendix D and Appendix E to the contract. 14. Article 41 is the Arbitration Clause in the contract which reads as under:- If any dispute, difference, question of disagreement shall, at any time, hereafter arise between the parties hereto or the respective representative or assigns in connection with or arising out of the Contract or in respect of meaning specifications, designs, drawings, Estimates schedules, annexures order, instructions, the constructions, Interpretation of this Contract, application of provisions thereof or anything here under contained or arising hereunder or as to the rights, liabilities or duties of the said parties hereunder or any matter whatsoever incidental to this Contract whether arising before or after the completion of the work under this contract, which cannot be mutually resolved by the parties, the same shall be referred to arbitration. The reference to arbitration shall be to arbitrators and in case of disagreements on a point under reference, the arbitrators shall make reference to the Umpire, who should be appointed by the arbitrators before proceeding with the arbitration proceedings. The decision of the Arbitrators and failing to an agreed decision by them, the decision of Umpire shall be final and binding on the parties. The party desiring the settlement of dispute shall give notice of its intention to go in for arbitration clearly stating the points of dispute to be decided by arbitrators and appoints its own arbitrator and call upon the other party to appoint its own arbitrator within 30 days. If the other party fails to appoint its arbitrator within stipulated period or the two arbitrators fail to appoint the Umpire, the court having jurisdiction shall appoint the second arbitrator and/or the Umpire as the case may be. It will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is an employee of Operator or that he had to deal with the matters to which the Contract relates and that in the course of his duties as Operator’s employee he had expressed views on all or any of the matter in dispute or difference. It will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is an employee of Operator or that he had to deal with the matters to which the Contract relates and that in the course of his duties as Operator’s employee he had expressed views on all or any of the matter in dispute or difference. If the arbitrators or umpire to whom the matter is originally referred dies or refuses to act or resign from the position of arbitrators or Umpire for any reasons, a new arbitrator/umpire shall be appointed by the respective parties/arbitrators in the manner aforesaid. The new arbitrator/arbitrators or new umpire shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor if both the parties consent to this effect, failing which they will be entitled to proceed denove. It is further term of the Contract that no person other than the person appointed as aforesaid shall act as an arbitrator/umpire and that, if for any reason that is not possible, the matter is not to be referred to the arbitration at all. The arbitrators or the umpire may from time to time, with written consent of all the parties to the Contract, enlarge the time to make and publish their or his award. It is also a term of the Contract that the Contractor shall not stop the work under this Contract and the work shall continue as expected to continue whether the arbitration proceedings have commenced or not. The arbitrators or the umpire, as the case may be, shall decide by whom and in what proportions the arbitrator’s or umpire’s fees as well as cost incurred in arbitration shall be borne. The arbitrators shall be deemed to have entered on the reference on the date they appoint an umpire. The arbitrators/umpire shall give reasoned award in respect of each dispute or difference referred to him. The award as aforesaid shall be final, conclusive and binding on all the parties of this Contract in accordance with the law. The venue of the arbitration shall be at Dehradun, India, subject as aforesaid, the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and any statutory modifications or reenactments thereof and rules made thereunder for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause. 15. The venue of the arbitration shall be at Dehradun, India, subject as aforesaid, the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and any statutory modifications or reenactments thereof and rules made thereunder for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause. 15. Now this Court thinks it just and proper to mention as to on what grounds the award given by the Umpire can be challenged by a party under section 30 of The Arbitration Act, 1940. Section 30 of said Act reads as under:- Grounds for setting aside award:- An award shall not be set aside except on one or more of the following grounds, namely (a) that an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself or the proceedings. (b) that an award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration or after arbitration proceedings have become invalid under Section 35 (c) that an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. 16. Out of the above three grounds ONGC had challenged the award only on ground “(a)” mentioned above, and it is argued that the Umpire had misconducted himself in the proceedings in taking the view that the claim made by the Contractor was not payable under Article 18.4 (quoted above), and payable under Article 18(1)(d) of the agreement. 17. In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondent (contractor) submitted that mere interpreting a clause in the agreement and accepting one of the two views possible does not constitute any misconduct on the part of the umpire. I am in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the respondent as it gets supported by the view taken by Hon. Apex Court in State of U.P vs. Allied Constructions (2003) 7SCC page 396 delivered by three Hon’ble Judges in which it has been held that interpreting a contract is matter within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Similar view has been expressed by the Apex Court in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited vs. Dewan Chand Ram Saran (2012) 5 SCC page 306 (para 43). Similar view has been expressed by the Apex Court in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited vs. Dewan Chand Ram Saran (2012) 5 SCC page 306 (para 43). Also, in Madhya Pradesh Housing Board vs. Progressive Writers and Publishers (2009) 5 SCC page 678 (para 30) not only it has been held that interpretation of a contract is a matter within the jurisdiction of the arbitration but it has been further observed in para 28 that no reappraisal of evidence is permissible by the court before whom the award is challenged. To constitute a misconduct either the arbitrator must have conducted himself in violation of the terms of contract or the award must be perverse on the face of it which is not the case here. 18. Case of Associated Engineering Co. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1992 SC page 232 in which the reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant cannot be applied to the present case as in said case it was found that the arbitrator had acted arbitrarily independent of the contract. Similarly case of Grid Corporation of Orissa vs. Balasore Technical School AIR 1999 Sc page 2262 is of little help to the appellant in the present case for the reason in said case the arbitrator acted jurisdictional error while giving the award challenged before the court. In the present case no jurisdictional error has been committed by the Umpire (Hon. Mr. Justice R.S. Pathak). In M.D. Army Welfare Housing Organisation vs. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2004 SC page 1344, it has been held that if the award is passed without jurisdiction the same is liable to be set-aside, but in said case arbitrator had ignored the relevant provisions relating to rights and liabilities of the parties given in the contract, while in the present case the Umpire has discussed the relevant provisions given in Article 18.4 and Article 18(1)(d) of the agreement and opined as to for which part of the claim is covered by which provision and to what extent. 19. 19. Attention of this Court is also drawn on behalf of the appellant to the fact that the Umpire has observed in the impugned award that there was negligence on the part of the contractor in drilling the well in Dangewala due to which the site of the well was changed, and on its basis it is contended that the contractor was not entitled to any payment beyond what has been mentioned in Article 18.4 quoted above (i.e. 50% of the operating rate). On carefully going through the impugned award this Court finds that learned umpire has taken note of the fact that for “fishing” Article 18.4 is silent, and there is specific clause (d) in Article 18.1 of the contract which provides that 75% of the operating rate shall be payable for fishing, and awarded the claim accordingly. 20. As to the interest awarded by the trial court at the rate of 12% after the trial was over, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the same is excessive. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that transaction was nothing but commercial, interest at the rate of 12% per annum after the date of decision by the trial court cannot be said to be unreasonable or against any provision of law or that of agreement. 21. For the reasons as discussed above, in the opinion of this Court the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.