JUDGMENT : [Sambasiva Rao Naidu, J.] 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, dated 15-03-2018 in Arbitration O.P.No.101 of 2010 by which their request for setting aside the Award dated 09-08-2007 passed by the learned Arbitrator in respect of Claim No.7 and costs of Arbitration was negatived, the petitioners in the said Arb.O.P.No.101 of 2010 and respondents in Arbitration application No.7 of 2004 preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on various grounds: 2. Before going into the merits of the appeal and grounds on which the present appeal is filed, it would be necessary to look into the details of said Arbitration Application, Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, petition in Arbitration O.P., and order therein. 3. Prior to 1990, the Railway Board took a decision to run the trains on a track free from harsh sounds, bumps and jerks which occur at the joints of rails. A policy was evolved to join the rails through welding process so that there will not be any joint between the rails, which generally cause sounds, bumps etc., A Transport system consisting stanchion rakes and chute system was required for completing the above task. Therefore, the Railways called for tenders for developing such transport system. The respondent No.1 in the appeal participated in the tender and the same was accepted, an agreement was entered into between appellant and respondent No.1 herein on 05-02-1990 and that respondent No.1 has completed the said work. 4. It further shows that in view of the successful completion of the above work, the appellant herein has entrusted similar work to respondent No.1 on 07-08-1990. He has completed the work and handed over one stanchion rake on 24-11-1990 and another stanchion rake on 02-01-1991 and other equipment on 15-01-1991. The Appellant herein proposed the rates quoted in the first agreement dated 05-02-1990, but respondent No.1 did not agree, thereby, he was called for negotiations on 07-04-1992. After negotiations, the appellant adopted the same rates as per agreement dated 05-02-1990 and issued acceptance letter. Respondent No.1 protested the same but accepted the proposal by his letter dated 24-02-1992 subject to review of the rates. It was the grievance of respondent No.1 that in spite of his repeated demands, the appellant without any final measurements and final bill sent record of measurements on 09-02-1999. Respondent No.1 protested the same but accepted the proposal by his letter dated 24-02-1992 subject to review of the rates. It was the grievance of respondent No.1 that in spite of his repeated demands, the appellant without any final measurements and final bill sent record of measurements on 09-02-1999. Not satisfied with the said measurements, he got issued a legal notice to the appellants on 15-11-2000 seeking reference to an Arbitrator. Appellants vide letter dated 29-12-2000 refused his proposal for appointment of Arbitrator. Respondent No.1 filed A.A.No.296 of 2001 on 07-12-2001 at Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, on the assumption that since the Railway Board is at Delhi, he should file an application at Delhi. His application was returned by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for filing before the appropriate Court. Then respondent No.1 filed Arbitration Application vide A.A.No.7 of 2004 before the Erstwhile combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh. By an order dated 13-01-2004, a learned Single Judge of the said Court appointed the respondent No.2 herein as sole Arbitrator. Respondent No.1 filed his claim statement raising different claims. The claims of respondent No.1 were resisted by the appellants herein by way of a counter filed before the Arbitrator. The appellants have submitted their reply to each and every claim raised by respondent No.1. 5. The learned Arbitrator having heard both parties and after considering the documents, passed an award on 09-08-2007 holding that respondent No.1 is entitled to Rs.43,11,916-60 with interest @ 12 % per annum from 15-05-1991. It appears from the Award that the fee of the Arbitrator was fixed as Rs.25,00,000/- to be shared by both parties. By that time, already a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as such claim was made for Rs.24,00,000/-. The Award further shows that the appellant herein filed a memo stating that they are not willing to pay any amount except Rs.50,000/- which was already paid, as such Arbitrator directed the respondent No.1 herein to pay the balance of Rs.12,00,000/-in terms of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. As such the respondent No.1 paid the remaining amount also. Therefore, the learned Arbitrator directed the appellant herein to pay the said amount to the respondent No.1. 6. As such the respondent No.1 paid the remaining amount also. Therefore, the learned Arbitrator directed the appellant herein to pay the said amount to the respondent No.1. 6. As could be seen from the award, the learned Arbitrator decided to divide first claim into 2 sub items and held that the respondent No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,58,600/- under sub-item No.1 and to an amount of Rs.33,67,860-76/- under sub-item No.2. The learned Arbitrator allowed the second claim of respondent No.1 and awarded a sum of Rs.7,37,387-84/- under claim No.2. The respondent No.1 was awarded Rs.48,068/- under claim No.3. The claim Nos.4 to 6 and 9 of respondent No.1 herein were rejected. 7. The appellant herein challenge the award before the learned I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court in Arb.O.P.No.101 of 2010, but their petition was dismissed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad by an order dated 15-03-2018 which is impugned in the present appeal. 8. The appellants herein have challenged the order of the learned Chief Judge on the following grounds: (i). The learned I Addl. Chief Judge committed an error by dismissing their petition without appreciation their claim on interest on Claim No.7 and also fixing liability for the payment of Arbitration fee on the parties to the arbitration which is beyond the terms of contract, it is patently illegal, opposed to the public policy. (ii). The appellants have claimed that the arbitrator and Court below did not consider the issues and the points raised by the appellants herein, thereby, the award of the respondent No.2 by which the appellants herein were asked to pay interest on Claim No.7 and with regard to fee payable to the Arbitrator are liable to be set aside. (iii). According to the appellant, the claim of interest by the respondent No.1/claimant is prohibited and barred under Clause 16(2) of General Conditions of the Contract thereby cannot be awarded. They have claimed that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Clause No. 16(2) of General Conditions of the Contract prohibits awarding of interest thereby, the award to that extent ought to have been set aside by the Court below since the same was not accepted. (iv). The appellants have also claimed that the findings of the arbitrator on Clause No.16(2) of General Conditions of Contract are incorrect, as such the award is liable to be set aside. (v). (iv). The appellants have also claimed that the findings of the arbitrator on Clause No.16(2) of General Conditions of Contract are incorrect, as such the award is liable to be set aside. (v). According to the appellants, as the findings of the lower Court are contrary to the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other Hon’ble High Courts, the order is liable to be set aside. (vi). They have also claimed that the Court below ought to have seen that the fee fixed by the respondent No.2 for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-and Rs.20,000/- towards Secretarial allowances to be shared by both parties is on very high side, without any evidence, without any basis, thereby, it is liable to be set aside. But the Court below failed to appreciate this fact. (vii). They have also claimed that the respondent No.1 herein made frivolous and false claims and sought for a huge amount and the learned Arbitrator awarded Claims No.1 to 3 only with interest in such a case, payment of fee fixed by the Arbitrator to an extent of 12,10,000/- payable by the appellant herein is highly excessive and exorbitant. According to these appellants, they have already paid Rs.50,000/- towards the share of fee to the respondent No.2 Arbitrator which is reasonable and the appellants pleaded that the Court below ought to have set aside the award by which the Arbitration fee was fixed as Rs.25,00,000/-. Therefore, on all these grounds the appellants sought for setting aside the award of the 2nd Respondent. 9. As could be seen from the order of the learned I Addl. Chief Judge, it is very clear that while relying on Section 5 and Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and basing on the Judgment in “Sri Chittaranjan Maity Vs. Union of India, 2017 (9) SCC 183, the learned Chief Judge came to a conclusion that the Court while deciding a petition filed under Section 34, cannot sit as an Appellate Court to find out any defects in the award and as per Section 34, an arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if the party making the application is able to prove the existence of any conditions shown in Section 34 (2)(3) and there are no such grounds to set aside the award of the learned Arbitrator and dismissed the application. 10. 10. This Appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the decision in Arb.O.P.No.101 of 2010. The main grievance of the appellant is against the interest granted in favour of the 1st Respondent by the respondent No.2/Arbitrator and fees payable to the Arbitrator as they are beyond the terms of contract. According to the appellants Clause 16(2) of General Conditions of Contract prohibits grant of interest pendente lite and future interest. 11. The appellants have submitted that the Court below committed error by relying on a Judgment vide “N.G. Gunani Vs. Union of India, (1996) 4 ALT 1046 ”, with regard to interest, but the said Judgment is no longer good law in view of the Judgment between “Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions Vs. Railways, AIR 2010 SC 3337 ”, and subsequent Judgment between “Chittaranjan Maity Vs. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 611 ”. They have further pleaded that in view of the above referred Judgments it was held that when Clause 16(2) of General Conditions of Contract prohibits granting of interest, the same cannot be awarded. 12. The next ground on which they sought for setting aside the award is Arbitrator fee. According to the appellants, the fee fixed by the learned Arbitrator to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- is very high and without any basis. 13. As could be seen from the award, Claim No.7 of the respondent No.1 is as follows : “Payment of interest for the delayed payment of Clause Nos.1 to 5 and 6(II) from the date of completion of work up to the date of payment @ 24% per annum i.e., from 15-01-1991 to 10-11-2004 @ 264, 70, 86, 994”. 14. The learned Arbitrator while deciding this claim was of the opinion that General Conditions of Contract (GCC for short) placed by the appellant are of the year 1998. They are not applicable to the case on hand since the contract is of the year 1990 and for additional work i.e. the second contract is dated 15-01-1993. Therefore, General Conditions of the Contract prior to December, 1998 would apply to the case i.e., 1989 General Conditions of Contract. Clause (5) of condition No.64 is absent in General Conditions of Contract prior to the year 1998. Therefore, there is no Clause in General Conditions of Contract which prohibits the grant of interest by the Arbitration Tribunal. Therefore, General Conditions of the Contract prior to December, 1998 would apply to the case i.e., 1989 General Conditions of Contract. Clause (5) of condition No.64 is absent in General Conditions of Contract prior to the year 1998. Therefore, there is no Clause in General Conditions of Contract which prohibits the grant of interest by the Arbitration Tribunal. It is obvious that as Clause 5 was incorporated in condition 64 of General Conditions of the Contract 1998 such prohibition was not there in earlier General Conditions of Contract. Therefore, according to respondent No.2 (the learned Arbitrator) there is no prohibition to grant interest in award. The learned Arbitrator then proceeded to decide the Claim No.7 of the respondent No.1 herein. As per the Claim Statement filed by the respondent No.1, he has claimed interest @ 24% whereas, the learned Arbitrator has awarded interest @ 12%. As per the findings of the learned Arbitrator, the interest rate for commercial transactions during 1991 was more than 18% and by 2001, the interest rates came down to 9%. Having considered the figures of the rate of interest, the learned Arbitrator was of the opinion that Judicious balance will have to be struck between 9% and 18% and he felt that interest @ 12% per annum is just and reasonable interest that can be awarded. Accordingly he has awarded interest @ 12% on the Claim No.11. 15. As per the observations made by the I Addl. Chief Judge in the Arb.O.P. as per of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the said Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court to find out any defects in the award. 16. In a Judgment of Division Bench of this Court between “Mrs. Ragya Bee vs. M/s. P.S.R. Constructions, 2022 (2) ALT 320 (TS)”, it was observed that when Civil Court/Commercial Court is satisfied that right of the petitioner was affected within the parameters set out in Section 34 (2), it can only set aside the award but in no circumstance it can amend or alter the award. Ragya Bee vs. M/s. P.S.R. Constructions, 2022 (2) ALT 320 (TS)”, it was observed that when Civil Court/Commercial Court is satisfied that right of the petitioner was affected within the parameters set out in Section 34 (2), it can only set aside the award but in no circumstance it can amend or alter the award. In a Judgment between “Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises, 2021 SCC Online SC 1081”, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and award passed by the Tribunal awarding pendente lite and future interest, but the said order was passed in view of the specific bar contained in Clause 16(2) of General Conditions of Contract. While deciding the above matter, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to another Judgment of a Five Judge Bench in the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department, State of Orissa Vs. G.C. Roy, 1992 (1) SCC 508 , wherein it was held that when the agreement between the parties does not prohibit grant of interest and where the party claims interest and the dispute has been referred to Arbitrator then the Arbitrator does have the power to award interest pendente lite. Reliance was also placed on another Judgment between “Raverchee and Company Vs. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 664 ”, wherein it was held that the power to grant interest pendente lite is inherent in an Arbitrator, who also exercises the power to do equity and unless the claim expressly bars the Arbitrator from awarding interest pendente lite, the Arbitrator has all the powers to grant pendente lite interest. 17. Therefore, even from the above Judgments, it is clear that when the agreement between the parties does not prohibit grant of interest and where the party claims interest and the dispute has been referred to Arbitrator then the Arbitrator does have the power to award interest pendente lite. The appellant herein could not place any material to show that there was any specific agreement between the parties prohibiting the grant of such interest i.e., interest pendente lite or future interest while awarding interest @ 12%. In the light of the observation made by the respondent No.2/Arbitrator, it is clear that there is no such bar prohibiting the award of interest. In the light of the observation made by the respondent No.2/Arbitrator, it is clear that there is no such bar prohibiting the award of interest. The learned Arbitrator opined that Clause 16 (2) of General Conditions of Contract, 1998 has no application to the case on hand because the first work order and second additional work were of the years 1991 and 1993. In the light of the observations made in Ragya Bee vs. M/s. P.S.R. Constructions (supra) case, the Court while deciding an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot alter or amend the award and at the same time, if the Court is satisfied that the right of the petitioner is affected within the parameters set out in Section 34(2), the award can be set aside. But in the case on hand, the appellant is unable to satisfy this Court on any such ground. 18. The claim of appellants about the fee payable to the Arbitrator is purely out of the purview of reference between the parties. It is a fact that the learned Arbitrator fixed his fee as Rs.25,00,000/- and as already an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by both parties, he directed the parties to pay Rs.12,00,000/- each. It is also a fact that the appellants herein filed a memo raising objection to the fee and they did not agree to pay their share i.e., Rs.12,00,000/-. Therefore, the learned Arbitrator directed the respondent No.1 to pay the entire fee as per Section 38(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and as respondent No.1 paid the said amount, awarded the same in favour of respondent No.1. 19. While filing the petition under Section 34, the appellants herein questioned the same, but the Court below did not make any observation about this aspect in the Judgment impugned in the present appeal. 20. In a recent Judgment between “ONGC Vs. Afcons Gunanus J V, 2022 SCC online 1122”, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as follows : “125. Conscious and aware as we are that (i) Arbitration proceedings must be conducted expeditiously; (ii) Court interference should be minimal; and (iii) Some litigants would object to even a just and fair arbitration fee, we would like to effectuate the object and purpose behind enacting the model fee schedule. Conscious and aware as we are that (i) Arbitration proceedings must be conducted expeditiously; (ii) Court interference should be minimal; and (iii) Some litigants would object to even a just and fair arbitration fee, we would like to effectuate the object and purpose behind enacting the model fee schedule. When one or both parties, or the parties and the arbitral tribunal are unable to reach a consensus, it is open to the arbitral tribunal to charge the fee as stipulated in the Fourth Schedule, which we would observe is the model fee schedule and can be treated as binding on all. Consequently, when an arbitral tribunal fixes the fee in terms of the Fourth Schedule, the parties should not be permitted to object the fee fixation. It is the default fee, which can be changed by mutual consensus and not otherwise. xxxxxx 200. We answer the issues raised in this batch of cases in the following terms: (i) Arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally issue binding and enforceable orders determining their own fees. A unilateral determination of fees violates the principles of party autonomy and the doctrine of the prohibition of in rem suam decisions, i.e., the arbitrators cannot be a judge of their own private claim against the parties regarding their remuneration. However, the arbitral tribunal has the discretion to apportion the costs (including arbitrators' fee and expenses) between the parties in terms of Section 31(8) and Section 31A of the Arbitration Act and also demand a deposit (advance on costs) in accordance with Section 38 of the Arbitration Act. If while fixing costs or deposits, the arbitral tribunal makes any finding relating to arbitrators' fees (in the absence of an agreement between the parties and arbitrators), it cannot be enforced in favour of the arbitrators. The arbitral tribunal can only exercise a lien over the delivery of arbitral award if the payment to it remains outstanding under Section 39(1). The party can approach the court to review the fees demanded by the arbitrators if it believes the fees are unreasonable under Section 39(2);” 21. Fourth Schedule of the Act reads as under: See Section 11(3-A) Sl. No. Sum in dispute Model fee (1) (2) (3) 1. Up to Rs. 5,00,000 Rs 45,000 2. Above Rs. 5,00,000 and up to Rs. 20,00,000 Rs 45,000 plus 3.5 per cent of the claim amount over and above Rs. 5,00,000. Fourth Schedule of the Act reads as under: See Section 11(3-A) Sl. No. Sum in dispute Model fee (1) (2) (3) 1. Up to Rs. 5,00,000 Rs 45,000 2. Above Rs. 5,00,000 and up to Rs. 20,00,000 Rs 45,000 plus 3.5 per cent of the claim amount over and above Rs. 5,00,000. 3. Above Rs. 20,00,000 and up to Rs. 1,00,00,000 Rs 97,500 plus 3 per cent of the claim amount over and above Rs. 20,00,000. 4. Above Rs. 1,00,00,000 and up to Rs. 10,00,00,000 Rs 3,37,500 plus 1 per cent of the claim amount over and above Rs. 1,00,00,000. 5. Above Rs. 10,00,00,000 and up to Rs. 20,00,00,000 Rs 12,37,500 plus 0.75 per cent of the claim amount over and above Rs. 10,00,00,000. 6. Above Rs. 20,00,00,000 Rs 19,87,500 plus 0.5 per cent of the claim amount over and above Rs. 20,00,00,000 with a ceiling of Rs. 30,00,000. Note : In the event the arbitral tribunal is a sole arbitrator, he shall be entitled to an additional amount of twenty-five per cent on the fee payable as per the above.” 22. As per the Fourth Schedule of the Act, if the claim is more than Rs. 20 crores and if there is no consensus among the parties to the arbitration, the Arbitrator can fix his fee. However, it should not exceed Rs. 30 lakhs. In the instant case, the Arbitrator has fixed Rs. 25 lakhs as fee to be shared by both the parties. 23. In view of the above, the appellants herein cannot question the same in an application filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 24. In view of above reasons, there are no merits in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. 25. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.