Judgment:
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of F.A.O s' Nos. 146, 147, 946, 947 and 115 to 119, all of 1989 filed by the Scale of Punjab for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Ropar, dated 30- 11-1988 and the Award given by the Arbitrator on 31-5-1988, as common question of law and fact arise in all these appeals.
2. For the purpose of judgment, facts have been taken from F.A.O No. 146 of 1989, State of Punjab v. V. K. Sood Contractors and Engineers.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that a dispute having arisen between the Contractor and the State of Punjab, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator by the Contractor of his own The Arbitrator gave the Award on 31-5-1988. M/s. V.K. Sood Contractors made an application in the Court of Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Ropar for making the Award a Rule of the Court. The State of Punjab filed objections. However, the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Ropar, vide order, dated 3011-1988 made the Award a rule of the Court and in pursuance thereof, a decree was passed in favour of the contractor to the tune of Rs. 78,52,198/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum against the Objector/State of Punjab from the date of reference till the date of realisation. Aggrieved against the same, the State of Punjab has filed the present appeal.
4. The award has been challenged inter alia on the ground that interest has been wrongly awarded for the pendente lite. The Arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings and has also misinterpreted the contract.
5. Respondents have put in appearance and have defended the judgment of the learn Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Ropar
6. I have considered the submission of the learned counsels.
7. The matter is squarely covered by the judgments of the Supreme Court. In M/s. Hindustan Tea Co. v. M/s. K. Sashikant & Co., A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 81. it was held that under the law, the arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties. The award is not open to challenge on the ground that the Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate facts. In Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal, A. I. R. 1989 S. C. 1263. it was held that an arbitrator's award may be set aside for error of law appearing on the face of it Though this jurisdiction is not to be lightly exercised. The award can also be set aside, if, inter alia, the arbitrator has misconducting himself or the proceedings...... It is not misconduct on the part of an arbitrator to come to an erroneous decision, whether his error is one of fact or law, and whether or not his findings of fact are supported by evidence.
8. In Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa v. G. C. Roy, J. T. 1991 (6) S. C. 349. it was held that award of interest pendente lite is not a matter of substantive law, like interest for the period anterior to reference (pre-reference period). For doing complete Justice between the parties, such power has always been inferred. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that having regard to the above considerations we think that the following is the correct principle which should be followed in this behalf: -
'Where the agreement between the parties does not prohibit grant of interest and where a party claims interest and that dispute (alongwith the claim for principal amount or independently) is referred to the arbitrator, he shall have the power to award interest pendente lite......'
6. For the foregoing reasons, the Award, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court are not liable to challenge. Hence the appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed as such The bank guarantee finished by the respondent is ordered to be released. No costs.