STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. Vs. GOVINDA CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent Govinda Choudhry was a Contractor under The State of Orissa. The Contract was that be would construct five high level bridges and a vented causeway on the Pipli -Konark Road. One agreement in Form F2 was signed on the 10th of March, 1961. The construction was completed on The 21st of March, (sic). Under The Agreement, The date of preparation of the final bill for. The work was within one month from the date of completion of the work. In fact, however, The final bill was prepared on 29th of March, 1965. It need hardly be stated that after the preparation of the final bill, the State is to pay the money to the Contractor towards The work done. As dispute arose regarding the quantum of payment, The Contractor wanted that the matter should be referred to arbitration through Court under The terms of the arbitration agreement. Mr. S.K. Palit, retired Chief Engineer was appointed as The Arbitrator. Both parties appeared before him. He passed the Award on 16th January, 1970 under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). After intimation of the passing of The Award was given to the parties, an objection was filed by the State of Orissa (Appellant). The Contractor filed a counter to the objection stating that no application bad been filed by the Appellant under Section 33 of the Act for setting aside the Award on the grounds mentioned in Section 30. Though no application under Section 33 of the Act was filed, yet the learned Subordinate Judge considered the objections filed by the Appellant. After over -ruling the objections, he passed a judgment in terms of the A ward. It is against that judgment that the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) LAW is now well settled that the Award cannot be set aside by this Court unless there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. No such error was pressed into service by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Appellant. The Award cannot, therefore, be set aside on that ground.

(3.) IT is now (sic) settled by series of Supreme Court ' decisions that unless there is a specific clause in the Agreement, prohibiting award of interest, the Arbitrator has jurisdiction to award interest from the due date of payment till the date of the award. Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Indore : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1030. Union of India v. Bungo Steel Furniture Private Ltd. : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1032, and Ashok Construction Co. v. Union of India, 1970 S.C.D. 530. The Award of the Arbitrator cannot, therefore, be questioned on the ground that he allowed interest from the due date till the date of the decree. There was no term in the Agreement that interest is not to be awarded. The dispute included a specific reference to the award of interest. As such the Arbitrator exercised his jurisdiction legally in awarding interest.