JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. The petitioner has filed a petition under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to make the award dated 12.9.1994 by Shri M. Kuppuswamy, Superintending Engineer, a rule of the court. The petitioner has also prayed for interest to be awarded. The respondent DDA has filed objections to the award. The same were registered as I.A. No. 6219/95.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The principal ground of challenge to the award is in respect of claim Nos. 3 and 6. Learned counsel argued that the Arbitrator had failed to give reasons in respect of claim No. 3 although he was enjoined in terms of the arbitration agreement to make a reasoned award. Claim No. 3 relates to the recovery of deduction of rebate made by the respondent. The Arbitrator held that the claim had been confined by petitioner to Rs. 1,28,436/- which was 0.5% of the estimated cost put to tender. The arbitrator has given a clear finding that the bill remained pending from 31st January, 1992 and had not been discharged till date of the making of the award. The respondent were not entitled to rebate to be given by the Arbitrator. The objections in this regard are without merit.
3. Learned counsel further argued that there was no notice claiming interest as required was given by the claimant. The claimants were not entitled to interest and the Arbitrator had acted contrary to, law in awarding the pre suit interest. Learned counsel for the claimants had drawn my attention to exhibits C-30, C-33, C-34, C-37 and C-39 wherein the claimants had duly notified the respondents of its claim for interest. Learned counsel argued that the notice would not meet the statutory requirement under the Interest Act as the notice was not in respect of the claim having an ascertained sum. I am unable to agree. It is only after the arbitration proceedings are completed and the award is made and that the claimed amount gets crystallized into liability. The claimants may have claimed a particular amount. Simply because the awarded amount happens to be less than the amount claimed, it cannot be said that the amount claimed was not an ascertained sum so as to disentitle the parties from claiming interest under Section 3(1)(b) of the Interest Act. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to State of Rajasthan v. Raghubir Singh , wherein the court held that once a claim was made and based on calculation it will fall within the terms sum certain and it could not be said that it was not for a certain sum. The objections in this regard also fail.
4. There is no infirmity or impediment to the award being made rule of the court. The award dated 12.9.1994, made by Sh. M. Kuppuswamy, in respect of agreement No. 5/EE/DDX/DDA/85-86 is made rule of the Court. Let a decree in terms of the award be drawn up. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the interest at the rate 12% on the principal amount of the award from the date of decree till realization.
5. The petition stands disposed of.