JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. U. Chakraborty, learned Special Senior Railway Counsel, N.F. Railway, appearing for the appellants. I have also heard Mr. S. J. Sarma, learned counsel representing the respondent. 2. This appeal preferred by the N.F.Railway authorities under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, in short, the Act of 1996) is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2010 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati in Misc. (Arb.) Case No.621/2007 dismissing the application filed by the appellants under section 34 of the Act of 1996 praying for setting aside the arbitral award dated 17.09.2007 passed by the sole arbitrator, Sri Abhay Misra, FA & CAO/F&B, N.F.Railway, in Arbitration Case No.2/2007. 3. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass and can be briefly noticed as follows. The respondent herein had entered into a contract agreement bearing No.CON/S-L/836 dated 5.10.2004 with the appellant for execution of the contractual work viz., "manufacture and supply of prestressed Monoblock Concrete Sleepers (pretensioned type) mixed gauge PSC Sleepers as per drawing No.CE/CON/K-A/P/1/02 to Suit 60 kg U/C Rail for BG and 52 kg for MG as per IRS specification NT - 39-85 along with latest alteration if any duly transported at railway stations/level crossing between stations Lumding-Langting and Damcherra-Silchar on Lunding-Silchar Section". During the execution of the contract, certain dispute and differences arose by and between the parties. Since Clause 60 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) contained a provision for reference of such dispute to arbitration, the respondent had demanded that the dispute be settled through arbitration. Acting on the said request made by the respondent, the appellants had appointed Sri Abhay Misra as the sole arbitrator. In the arbitration proceeding the respondent had filed its claim and the appellant/N.F.Railways had also filed counter-claim. Upon conclusion of the proceeding, the learned sole arbitrator had passed the arbitral award dated 17.09.2007 in favour of the respondent/claimant while rejecting the counter-claim filed by the appellant. 3. By filing the application under section 34 of the Act of 1996, the appellants had assailed the arbitral award dated 17.09.2007 primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that clause 16(3) of the GCC read with clauses 24.1 and 24.3 of the Indian Railways Standing Conditions of Contract (IRSCC) prohibits award of any interest on the claims of the contract. 3. By filing the application under section 34 of the Act of 1996, the appellants had assailed the arbitral award dated 17.09.2007 primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that clause 16(3) of the GCC read with clauses 24.1 and 24.3 of the Indian Railways Standing Conditions of Contract (IRSCC) prohibits award of any interest on the claims of the contract. It was also the case of the appellants that the counter-claim of the appellant (N.F.Railway) was rejected by the learned sole arbitrator in an illegal manner. By the impugned judgment and order dated 08.12.2010, the learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati had dismissed the aforesaid petition by holding that under the contract agreement, the arbitrator did have the jurisdiction to award pre-reference and pendentelite interest in favour of the claimant and the clauses referred to and relied upon by the N.F.Railway authorities would not come in the way of awarding such interest in favour of the respondent. The objection as regards non- consideration of the counter claim filed by the appellant was also turned down by the learned District Judge on the ground that no such plea was taken in the application filed by the Railways under section 34 of the Act of 1996. 4. Referring to the observations made in the order dated 08.12.2010 Mrs. Chakraborty submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati is unsustainable in law in as much as the learned court below has failed to appreciate that the contract agreement entered into by and between the parties had created a specific bar against awarding interest in favour of the contractor. Urging that the arbitrator would not have the jurisdiction to award any interest under the contract agreement, Mrs. Chakraborty has argued that the impugned arbitral award dated 17.09.2007, in so far as it awards interest with regard to the Claim Nos.2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10, is unsustainable in law and hence, liable to be set aside by this Court. Chakraborty has argued that the impugned arbitral award dated 17.09.2007, in so far as it awards interest with regard to the Claim Nos.2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10, is unsustainable in law and hence, liable to be set aside by this Court. The learned counsel has, however, fairly submitted that the appellants are not aggrieved by the remaining part of the award and a sum of Rs.1,26,69,274.00, being the principal amount awarded by the learned arbitrator along with the accrued interest, has also been deposited by the appellant N.F.Railway before the Registry of this Court in terms of the order dated 29.05.2012 passed in MC 1509/2012 arising out of Arb. A. 1/2011 and the said amount has also been released in favour of the respondent. In support of her aforesaid argument the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon and referred to the following decisions :- (1) 2004 (Supp) GLT 489 [Union of India vs. Major V. P. Nijhawan] (2) 2002 (2) GLT 476 [Kuljit Singh & Co. vs. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation & another] (3) (2008)8 SCC 251 [M. B. Patel and company vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission] 5. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has argued that a bare reading of the arbitral award dated 17.09.2007 would go to show that the amount awarded by the learned sole arbitrator with regard to Claim Nos.2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 were not on account of withholding any amount due and payable by the contractor nor was it on account of withholding of the earnest money, security deposit or any amount payable to the contractor under the contract. Therefore, submits Mr. Sarma, the aforesaid clauses in the contract relied upon by the Railway authorities dealing with payment of interest to the contractor would not have any application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Mr. Sarma further submits that the arbitral award passed by the learned sole arbitrator in favour of the respondent under Claim Nos.2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 do not come within the purview of clauses 24.1 and 24.3 of the IRSCC or clause 16(3) of the GCC. Under the circumstances, the learned District Judge has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order dated 08.12.2010 dismissing the application filed by the appellants under section 34 of the Act of 1996. 6. Under the circumstances, the learned District Judge has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order dated 08.12.2010 dismissing the application filed by the appellants under section 34 of the Act of 1996. 6. As noted above, the challenge to the arbitral award dated 17.09.2007 in the present case is on a very limited sphere, viz., the award of interest by the sole arbitrator with regard to the sum awarded in respect of Claim Nos.2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10. The said plea has been raised with specific reference to the aforementioned clauses in the GCC and the IRSCC. Therefore, in order to appreciate the controversy raised by the appellant, it would be necessary to briefly refer to the nature of award passed by the learned arbitrator. The position will be clear from the operative part of the arbitral award dated 17.09.2007 which is extracted herein below :- "DETAILS OF CLAIM AND ITS ADMITTANCE Sl. No. Particulars Investment Expenses Bank Interest Rate Qtr. Comp. No. Of Dates Delay Interest "B" Total Award 1 Civil Construction (invested) between :- 05.03.2005 to 20.09.2005 interest calculated 20.09.05 to 11.01.07 2,883,600.00 Nil 2. 2a Plant Idle (invested) upto :- 05.06.2006 Interest Upto 11.01.07 interest on the interest Amount from 12.01.07 to 31.08.07 46,181,413.00 3,974,091.00 13.75% 13.75% 220 232 3,974,091.00 361,207.00 3,974,091.00 361,207.00 39,74,091.00 3,61,207.00 3 Loss of Production 05.06.2006 to 11.01.2007 Interest calculated 12.01.07 to 31.08.07 8,433,040.00 13.75% 232 766,485.00 9,199,525.00 7,66,485.00 4. Labour Idle (05.06.06 to 11.01.07) Interest calculated 12.01.07 - 31.08.07 4,951,100.00 Nil 5. Loss of Production (RDSO) 13.03.2007 TO 12.06.2007 Interest calculated 13.06.07 to 31.08.07 3,614,160.00 13.75% 80 108,920.00 3,723,080.00 108,920.00 6. Labour Idle (RDSO) 2121900.00 Nil 7. Mould Cost (New Fabrication) Less : Sale of Old Mould 3,808,000.00 652,800.00 3155,200.00 3155,200.00 8. L.D. Deduction (02.07.07) Interest calculated 03.07.07 to 31.08.07 402,475.00 13.75% 60 9,097.00 411,572.00 4,11,572.00 9. Approach Road (Expenses) (30.06.06) Interest calculated 01.07.06 to 31.08.07 2,442,599.00 13.75% 427 424,150.00 2,866,749.00 28,66,749.00 10. Cement Resale (22.02.07) 1,000,000.00 13.75% 190 73,963.00 1,073,963.00 10,73,963.00 11. PVC 40912563 PVC Admitted. Award as per latest RBI Bulletin Grand Total 1,27,18,187.00 + PVC On actual Calculations as per RBI Bullletin Railway administration is directed to pay the award within 30(thirty) days from the date of award/awarded otherwise 18% p.a. interest will have to be paid by railways. Sd/- illegible ABHAY MISRA FA & CA O/F & B Sole Arbitrator" 7. Award as per latest RBI Bulletin Grand Total 1,27,18,187.00 + PVC On actual Calculations as per RBI Bullletin Railway administration is directed to pay the award within 30(thirty) days from the date of award/awarded otherwise 18% p.a. interest will have to be paid by railways. Sd/- illegible ABHAY MISRA FA & CA O/F & B Sole Arbitrator" 7. As noted above, the appellant is aggrieved only by the interest component awarded by the learned sole arbitrator with regard to the Claim Nos.2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10. Since a specific reference has been made to the clauses 16(3) of the GCC and 24.1, 24.3 of the IRSCC, it may be useful to reproduce the said clauses herein-below for ready reference. Clause 16 of the GCC deals with earnest money and security deposit. Clause 16(3) of the GCC reads as follows :- "(3) No interest will be payable upon the Earnest Money and Security Deposit or amounts payable to the Contractor under the contract, but government Securities deposited in terms of Sub-Clause (1) of this clause will be payable with interest accrued thereon." 8. The IRSCC contains special conditions of contract and as noted above, clauses 24.1 and 24.3 of the IRSCC have been relied upon by the appellant. Clause 24.1 of the IRSCC reads as follows :- "24.1. Whenever any claim or claims for payment of a sum of money arises out of or under the contract against the contractor, the purchaser shall be entitled to withhold and also have lien to retain such sum or sums in whole or, in part from the security, if any, deposited by the contractor and for the purpose aforesaid, the purchaser shall be entitled to withhold the said cash security deposit or the security, if any, furnished as the case may be and also have a lien over the same pending finalisation or adjudication of any such claim. In the event of the security being insufficient to cover the claimed amount or amounts or if no security has been taken from the contractor, the purchaser shall be entitled to withhold and have lien to retain to the extent of the such claimed amount or amounts referred to supra, from any sum or sums found payable or which at any time thereafter may become payable to the contractor under the same contract or any other contract with the purchaser or the Government pending finalisation or adjudication of any such claim. It is an agreed term of the contract that the sum of money or moneys so withheld or retained under the lien referred to above, by the purchaser will be kept withheld or retained as such by the purchaser till the claim arising out of or under the contract is determined by the Arbitrator (if the contract is governed by the arbitration clause) or by the competent court as prescribed under Clause 27.3 hereinafter provided, as the case may be and that the contractor will have no claim for interest or damages whatsoever on any account in respect of such withholding or retention under the lien referred to supra and duly notified as such to the contractor." However, clause 24.3 of the IRSCC relates to liens in respect of claims in other contracts which is extracted herein below :- "24.3. Lien in respect of claims in other contracts -- Any sum of money due and payable to the contractor (including the security deposit returnable to him) under the contract may withhold or retain by way of lien by the purchaser or Government against any claim of the purchaser or Government in respect of payment of a sum of money arising out of or under any other contract made by the contractor with the purchaser or Government. It is an agreed terms of the contract that the sum of money so withheld or retained under this clause by the purchaser or Government will be kept till his claim arising out of in the same contract or any other contract is either mutually settled or determined by the arbitrator, if the contract is governed by the arbitration clause or by the competent court under Clause 2703 hereinafter provided, as the case may be and that the contractor shall have no claim for interest or damages whatsoever on this account or on any other ground in respect of any sum of money withheld or retained under this clause and duly notified as such to the contractor." 9. From a plain reading of clause 16(3) of the GCC it would be apparent that the aforesaid clauses would debar claim of the contractor for payment of interest only if it is made in connection with withholding of earnest money, security deposit or any amounts payable to the contractor under the contract. Likewise, clauses 24.1 and 24.3 of the IRSCC debars the claim of the contractor for payment of interest against any amount withheld by the department on the grounds mentioned therein. It is to be noted herein that clauses 24.1 and 24.3 of the IRSCC would come into play only when any amount is "withheld" by the department on the grounds mentioned in the aforementioned clauses. However, as would be apparent from the materials on record, the aforesaid clauses nowhere prohibit payment of interest even with regard to claims arising out of damages and compensations on account of breach of contract. 10. In the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant there was a clause in the contract agreement which had categorically debarred the sole arbitrator from awarding interest on the specific head mentioned therein. However, in the present case, there is no such clause in the contract agreement which prohibits the sole arbitrator to award interest with regard to the nature of claim as mentioned in Claim Nos.2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10. As such, the decisions cited by Mrs. Chakraborty, in the opinion of this Court, would be of no assistance to her in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. As such, the decisions cited by Mrs. Chakraborty, in the opinion of this Court, would be of no assistance to her in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. It is also to be noted herein that in the absence of an agreement between the parties to the contrary, Section 31(7) of the Act of 1996 gives wide power to the arbitrator to award interest with regard to pre-reference, pendentelite and future claims of the parties. The law on the aforesaid point has been clarified by the Honble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa & others vs. N. C. Budharaj (deceased) by LRs and others reported in (2001)2 SCC 721 . Since it has been held that Claim Nos.2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 would not come within the purview of clause 16(3) of the GCC or clauses 24.1 and 24.3 of the IRSCC, it cannot be said that the contract agreement had created any bar restraining the arbitrator from awarding interest in favour of the contractor with regard to the Claim Nos.2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10. If that be so, under section 31(7) of the Act of 1996, the arbitrator had the jurisdiction to award interest in favour of the claimant. There is no other ground urged by the appellants counsel in this appeal. 12. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the judgment and order under appeal. As such, this appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Send back the LCR.