JUDGMENT
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
1. In respect of Agreement No. F 2-53 of 1979-80 dated
24.5.1979, disputes raised by the contractor were referred to the sole arbitrator, who gave award for payment of a sum of Rs. 1,87,318.75 paise, as principal amount, and Rs. 1,12.391.00 as interest @18% per annum, i.e, total sum of Rs. 2,99,709.75 paise to the contractor. The said award was made Rule of the Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 17.3.1992, The court below also granted interest pendente lite and future till realisation @ 6% per annum.
2. The contractor had made altogether 19 items of claims to the tune of Rs. 4,73,653.99 paise. The aforesaid claims related to refund of security deposits, refund of amount deducted from on account bills, value of moorrum not paid, value of gravel washed away during monsoon in 1991, consolidation of moorrum and stone, broken materials at quarry, labour advance, carriage of stone from Group-II to Group-I, price escalation for labour and materials, estimated profit on balance work, expenditure of idle labourers, extra travelling, fooding & lodging, salaries of idle staff, value of carriage of stone not mentioned in the agreement, loss and damages for devaluation etc. and interest @ 18% per annum from 12.3.1983 to 11.7.1986.
3. The arbitrator gave an unreasoned award.
4. One of the objections raised under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was that the Arbitrator did not consider the agreement and his failure to do so amounted to misconduct on his part. The measurement book, copies of running bills, final bill and several other letters from the department, including counter claim of the defendants regarding excess payment of Rs. 23,359.00 to the plaintiff were also not looked into by the Arbitrator, while passing the impugned award. It was also not clear from the award as to which of the items of claims were allowed and which were rejected. The grant of interest for the period 12.3.1983 to 11.7.1986 as well as interest pendente lite and future was contrary to law and against the terms of agreement.
5. Clause 36 of the agreement clearly barred grant of interest. It is not a case where Arbitrator decided any dispute which was not referred to him. Here the Arbitrator had not given his finding with regard to the claims and counter claims in any detailed manner
and on any particular claim. He awarded a lump- sum amount in favour of the contractor. So it cannot be said as to what particular claim was allowed and to what extent. In such a situation, the court cannot read the mind of Arbitrator in order to pin-point as to which particular claim was up-held or negatived. Only in a speaking order, the court can look into the reasonings of the Award. It is not open to court to probe the mental process of the Arbitrator and speculate, where no reason was given by him as to what impelled him to arrive at his conclusion. In this view of the matter, there is no illegality on the fate of the Award, to take it as mis-conduct on the part of the Arbitrator or the proceeding before him.
6. A reading of Clause 36 of the agreement in question shows that grant of interest against every type of claim was not prohibited. Prohibition was made only with respect to any money of balance, which may be lying with the department owing to the dispute, unsettle claim, differences of understanding between the Engineer I/C on the one hand and the contractor on the other or with respect to any un-avoidable delay on the part of Executive Engineer in making the final payment in any other respect whatsoever. The Arbitrator interpreted the said clause, in the present case, to mean that claims against which interest was not prohibited, it was implied in terms of the agreement. In Court’s opinion, it cannot be said that the Arbitrator had no power to award interest in the present case.
7. In the present case, dispute relating to interest was also referred to the Arbitrator. So it cannot be said that the Arbitrator travelled out side the contract or dealt with the matter not referred to him.
8. Defendants, therefore, had joined the issue on the question whether any interest could have been awarded against the defendants by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator, ultimately, came to his own conclusion regarding the same by rejecting their contention on merit by non-speaking award. I, therefore, find no substance in the contention made on behalf of the appellants that in view of Clause 36 of the Agreement, Arbitrator was not empowered to grant any interest.
9. In the circumstances, I find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. I also find no reason to interfere with the rate
of interest granted by the court below, while making the Award Rule of Court. There is no merit in the cross-objection filed in this regard by the respondent. The cross-objection is also, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
10. Appeal dismissed.