M.M. Kumar, C.J. 1. This order shall dispose of four appeals*. Two of the appeals have been filed by the State whereas other two have been preferred by the Contractor. 2. Facts have emerged from one and the same transaction. These appeals have been preferred by the State of J&K and its officers against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of AA Nos. 4 & 5 of 2001. The other two appeals have been preferred by the contractor against the same judgment. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the applications filed under Section 30 and 33 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, 1940 (for brevity 'the Act') praying for setting aside the awards dated 22.02.2001 by holding the same with modification concerning rate of interest. It is appropriate to mention that the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.33,139.75 in one award and Rs. 1,09,598.00 in the other award. The learned Single Judge while upholding the Awards has reduced the rate of interest at all the three stages from 12% per annum to 9% per annum. The operative portion of the order reads as under:- "In the present case, the agreement between the parties, does not expressly prohibit grant of interest pendent elite or otherwise. So viewed, the Arbitrator acted within his powers when he allowed interest on the claimed amount pre-reference, pendent elite and future. For the reasons discussed, none of the grounds urged for setting aside the award, is established. The applicants have failed to prove that the Arbitrator has mis-conducted himself or the proceedings issues 1 and 2 are accordingly decided in favour of non-applicant and against the applicants. So viewed, applications CMP No.24/2001 and CMP no 30/2001 for setting aside the award, are dismissed. Resultantly, the award is made rule of the court. However, the rate of interest as also the direction that post award interest would be payable on the claimed amount along with the interest accumulated on the claimed amount-pendente lite, warrant a second look. It would in the facts and circumstances of the case, be in the interest of justice to reduce the rate of interest at all the three stages from 12% per annum to 9% per annum. It would in the facts and circumstances of the case, be in the interest of justice to reduce the rate of interest at all the three stages from 12% per annum to 9% per annum. Further future interest i.e. post award interest at the rate of 9% per annum would be restricted to the claim amount i.e. Rs.33, 139.75 in the case of Claim-I, and Rs. 1,09,598.00 in the case of Claim-II only. Decree sheet be drawn up." 3. Mr. K. S. Johal, learned senior counsel, has supported the appeals filed by the Contractor whereas none has appeared in support of the appeals filed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir 4. We have heard Mr. K. S. Johal in support of the appeal filed by the contractor. We have also perused the memo of appeal filed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Keeping in view the nature of the controversy, not feel the necessity of adjourning the case on account of absence of the State counsel. 5. The only issue raised before us by Sh. K.S. Johal, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the contractor is that once the findings recorded by the arbitrator have not been interfered with then the grant of interest @ 12% could not have been reduced to 9% without any sustainable reasons. According to the learned counsel, the order passed by the learned Single Judge did not set out any cogent reasons to reduce the rate of interest and is thus liable to be set aside to that extent. 6. There is a contractor with the name of Shri Ved Parkash Rathore. He entered into a contract in the year 1972 with the Superintending Engineer, Electric Construction Circle No.1 for supply of skilled and un-skilled labour in connection with construction of Upper Sindh Hydel Project at Sumbal (Kashmir). The arrangement was extended from time to time and the extended period continued to be governed by the terms and conditions incorporated at the time of executing the initial contract. 7. The contractor raised two claims. Under claim no. 1 two demands were raised. A sum of Rs. 33,139,75 was demanded on account of overtime wages in respect of the period of June, 1973 to August 1974. Another demand raised was for payment of bills on account of expenses for travelling, lodging and boarding for an amount of Rs. 30,000. Under claim no. Under claim no. 1 two demands were raised. A sum of Rs. 33,139,75 was demanded on account of overtime wages in respect of the period of June, 1973 to August 1974. Another demand raised was for payment of bills on account of expenses for travelling, lodging and boarding for an amount of Rs. 30,000. Under claim no. II the contractor asked for a sum of Rs. 1,45,260.44 on account of unpaid bills, unauthorized rebates and non-payment of overtime wages in respect of period from March 1976 to August, 1976. The Superintending Engineer, Electric Construction Circle No.1 rejected both the claims. As a necessary consequence the contractor filed two applications for reference of the dispute to the arbitrator under Section 20 of the Act, which were allowed. 8. Shorn of unnecessary details, the arbitrator partially allowed claim no. I and awarded a sum of Rs. 33,139.75 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from April 1976 till the date of award and future interest at the rate of 12% on the awarded amount till the date of final realization of the amount. However the claim of Rs. 30,000.00 on account of travelling, lodging and boarding etc. was rejected. Likewise the arbitrator also awarded an amount of Rs. 1,09,598.00 under claim no. II with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of unpaid bills with effect from January 1978 and rebate deducted unauthorizedly with effect from April, 1980 and the overtime work from January 1977.The rate of interest at 12% per annum was fixed for all the three stages i.e. pre-reference, pendente lite and post award period. 9. The awards dated 22.01.2001 were challenged by the State of Jammu and Kashmir and its officer under Section 30/33 of the Act on the oft-taken ground that the arbitrator has mis-conducted himself and the proceedings. It was urged that the award was contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement and no details of labour supplied for overtime were furnished. It was asserted that the arbitrator decided the matter without any evidence on the file. The award was also challenged by questioning the competence of the arbitrator to impose interest on the awarded amount because there was no provision in the contract for payment of interest nor Interest Act was applicable. The learned Single Judge framed the following issues:- "1. It was asserted that the arbitrator decided the matter without any evidence on the file. The award was also challenged by questioning the competence of the arbitrator to impose interest on the awarded amount because there was no provision in the contract for payment of interest nor Interest Act was applicable. The learned Single Judge framed the following issues:- "1. Has the Arbitrator mis-conducted himself or the proceedings ? O.P on State. 2. Is the award otherwise invalid ? O.P on State. 3. Relief." 10. On issue no.1 the learned Single Judge held that the role of the Court while., dealing, with application under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Act is not that of an Appellate-Court or to enter into domain of re-appreciation and reappraisal of evidence adduced before the Arbitrator or to reach the conclusion different than the one recorded by the Arbitrator. In cases where the Court is dealing with a non-speaking award its role is further restricted because the material that weighed with the Arbitrator to accept or reject the claims of the parties is not available or known to the Court. In that regard the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 411 . It was further held that the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Act was not required to pass a speaking award and spell out reasons in support thereof. In that regard reliance has been placed on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Raipur Development Authority etc. v. Chokhamal Contractors etc. AIR 1990 SC 1426 . It is thus obvious that in the absence of express provision made in the arbitration clause the Arbitrator was required to pass a speaking or reasoned award nor there was any direction issued by the reference Court to the Arbitrator to give a reasoned award. Therefore, the challenge that the award non-speaking or there is insufficiency of evidence or no evidence, were rejected by the learned Single Judge who has placed reliance on a passage from 'Handbook of Arbitration Practice' by Ronald Berstein that have been duly approved by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rajindera Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC 678 . 11. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC 678 . 11. The learned Single Judge also rejected the claim of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and its officer that the award of interest at the rate of 12% per annum was without jurisdiction by holding that the Arbitrator, in the absence of any term of contract between the parties prohibiting the award of interest, was fully entitled to award interest at all the three stages, namely, pre-reference period, pendente lite period and post award period. The learned Single Judge took the law well settled holding that interest in a way represent the damages for delayed payment and may be allowed even in absence of the agreement unless of course the agreement expressly prohibits the grant of interest. In that regard reliance has been placed on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa v. G. C. Roy, AIR 1992 SC 732 , Smt. Manjit Johl v. Dewan Modern Breweries Ltd. AIR 1994 J&K, 56 : JKJ Soft JKJ/12806 and Executive Engineer Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division v. N. C. Budharaj, (2001) 2 SCC 721 . The position has been summed up by extracting para 30 from Rejendra Construction Company’s case (supra), which is set out below in extensor:- "The question then remains as to interest. The appellant had claimed interest in the suits. The Arbitrator awarded interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the principal amount from the date of the suits to the date of awards and also from the date of the awards to the date of payment or up to the date of decrees, 'whichever is earlier'. This Court has dealt with the power of Arbitrator to award interest for (i) pre-reference period [Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division & Others v. N.C. Budhraj (Deceased) by LRs & Others (2001) 2 SCC 721 ]; (ii) pendente lite [Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & Others v. G.C. Roy (1992) 1 SCC 508 ]; and (iii) post-award period [Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1992) 4 SCC 217 : 2010 (5) JKJ 718 [SC]]. Ltd. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1992) 4 SCC 217 : 2010 (5) JKJ 718 [SC]]. In Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 2071 : JT (2005) 4 SC 73, one of us (C.K. Thakker, J.) had an occasion to consider the relevant decisions on the power of Arbitrator to award interest at all the three stages. It was held that the arbitrator had power to award interest. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case that the contract was entered into in 1987, the work was completed in 1990 after extension granted by MHADA and the Arbitrator passed awards in 1995, it would be proper, equitable and in the interest of justice if we reduce the rate of interest to 10 per cent per annum." 12. In the present case there is no express term or conditions which prohibit the grant of interest pendente lite or otherwise. Therefore, the learned Single Judge holds that the Arbitrator acted within his power while allowing interest on the claimed amount in respect of pre-reference period, pendente lite and future. The learned Single Judge did not find any ground to conclude that Arbitrator mis-conducted himself or the proceedings and concluded by observing as under:- "In the present case, the agreement between the partiers does not expressly prohibit grant of interest pendente lite or otherwise. So viewed, the Arbitrator acted within his powers when he allowed interest on the claimed amount pre-reference, pendent lite and future. Fort the reasons discussed, none of the grounds urged for setting aside the award, is established. The applicants have failed to prove that the Arbitrator has mis-conducted himself or the proceedings issues 1 and 2 are accordingly decided in favour of the non-applicant and against the applicants. So viewed, applications CMP No. 24/2001 and CMP No. 30/2001 for setting aside the award, are dismissed. Resultantly, the award is made rule of the court. However, the rate of interest as also the direction that post award interest would be payable on the claimed amount along with the interest pendent lite, warrant a second look. It would in the facts and circumstances of the case, be in the interest of justice to reduce the rate of interest at all the three stages from 12% per annum to 9% per annum. It would in the facts and circumstances of the case, be in the interest of justice to reduce the rate of interest at all the three stages from 12% per annum to 9% per annum. Further future interest i.e. post award interest at the rate of 9% per annum would be restricted to the claim amount i.e. Rs. 33, 139.75 in the case of Claim-1, and Rs 1,09,598.00 in the case of Claim-II only. Decree sheet be drawn up." 13. In para 2 of the memo of appeals filed by the State of J&K, grounds (a) to (j) have been set out which virtually raises the same issues which have been dealt with by the learned Single Judge. For example, in ground (a) a new interpretation on Clause 18 of the agreement has been sought. The aforesaid Clause 18 has been consigned by the learned Single Judge, which is set out below in extenso:- "Normally the labour to be supplied has to work for 8 (eight) hours every day. However sometimes the labour will have to work overtime in excess of normal 8 hours either during day time or at night in which case the contractor shall have to supply the labour for such overtime working. The contractor shall be entitled to 50% extra wages for such labour supplied by him. A separate record of labour normally employed as well as the same engaged over time shall be kept properly by the Officer Incharge of the work and signed by both the parties." 14. A perusal of the aforesaid Clause would show that the labour to be supplied has to work for 8 hours every day and for working overtime in excess to normal 8 hours either during day time or at night, the contractor was required to supply the labour for overtime working. Thus the contractor was under obligation to supply labour for such overtime working. There is no ambiguity in Clause 18 for payment of 50% of extra wages for overtime hours. However, the Arbitrator has reached a conclusion by awarding an amount of Rs. 33,139.75 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from April 1976 till the date of award and future interest at the same rate till the final realization of the awarded amount. However, the Arbitrator has reached a conclusion by awarding an amount of Rs. 33,139.75 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from April 1976 till the date of award and future interest at the same rate till the final realization of the awarded amount. There is no provision in the contract for passing a speaking or reasoned award, therefore, the department cannot argue that the claim accepted by the Arbitrator is arbitrary or result in his misconduct for not passing speaking award. Likewise, challenge has been thrown to the award by disputing the exorbitant rate of interest, the award is without any reasons and based on no evidence, against public policy etc. Admittedly there is no provision prohibiting the award of interest or award the same at a particular rate. The Arbitrator thus enjoys the competence to award interest and at a rate which appear to be reasonable to him. After close examination of the grounds set out in memo of appeal we are unable to persuade ourselves that any one of the grounds would advance the cause of the appellant-State to nullify the awards dated 22.01.2001 or the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the appeals filed by the appellant-State do not merit acceptance and are thus liable to be dismissed. 15. The argument of Mr. K. S. Johal, learned senior counsel, that rate of interest awarded by the Arbitrator should not have been reduced in the absence of any cogent reasons, we are of the view that the discretion exercised by the Arbitrator should ordinarily be respected. There is no material on record to suggest that the prevalent rate of interest at appropriate time at any of the three stages was far lower than 12% so as to alter the same by judicial intervention. A quick survey of case law would also indicate that the Court can reduce the rate of interest but there has to be some cogent reason. For example, in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra Reddy, 2007 (1) Arb. A quick survey of case law would also indicate that the Court can reduce the rate of interest but there has to be some cogent reason. For example, in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra Reddy, 2007 (1) Arb. LR 148 (SC), the view taken in para 11 is that the rate of interest was reduced from 18% awarded by the Arbitrator for the pre-arbitration period, for the pendente lite period and future interest to 9% keeping in view that after economic reforms in our country the interest regime has changed and the rates of interest have substantially reduced. In the present case dispute has arisen in 1976 which is far ahead of the era of economic reforms. In 1980s or early 1990s rate of interest have been over 12% also. Therefore, we are of the view that the award of interest at the rate of 12% per annum is not exorbitant and the discretion, as exercised by the Arbitrator, cannot be regarded as unreasonable. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent it reduces the rate of interest to 9% per annum and restore the rate of interest at the rate of 12% per annum awarded by the Arbitrator. 16. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeals of the contractor are partially allowed. As indicated above the contractor would be entitled to interest at all the stages at the rate of 12% per annum as per the award of the Arbitrator. However, the appeals filed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir are dismissed. 17. No order as to costs. * S. No. Case No. Title 1. CIMA No. 29/2011 Ved Parkash Rathore & Co. v. State of J&K and ors. 2. CIMA No. 30/2011 Ved Parkash Rathore & Co. v. State of J&K and ors. 3. CIMA No. 18/2011 State of J&K & anr. v. Ved Parkash Rathore & Co. 4. CIMA No. 19/2011, CMA No. 20/2011 State of J&K & anr. v. Ved Parkash Rathore & Co.