State of Orissa vs Purusottam Pradhan

B.K. Behera, J.—In this appeal arising out of the order dated 24-3-1982, passed by Mr. H. Mohapalra, the learned Subordinate Judge at Rourkela, dismissing Misc. Case No. 26 of 1982, registered on an application made by the State of Orissa raising objection to the acceptability of the award u/s 33, Arbitration Act, 1940, in Title Suit No. 46 of 1981, passed by Mr. Niranjaa Misra, Superintending Engineer, P. H. Circle, Sambalpur, the grounds taken by the learned Additional Government Advocate at the time of addressing this Court are that there was no valid reference because there was no dispute between the parties and the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award interest. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that the learned Subordinate Judge had carefully considered these objections and had rejected the application.

The appointment of the arbitartor was Dot challenged then and this question was agitated only after the submission of the award. No misconduct on the part of the arbitrator in the course of the proceeding had been alleged in the application made by the State. A dispute arose and both the parties submitted to arbitration. No ground has been made out that no valid reference had been made.

Unless the payment of interest has been prohibited by the agreement, it is open to the arbitrator to award interest. This position has been well settled in a number of judicial pronouncements of this Court. (See Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Khurda Vs. D.N. Senapati and Another, , State of Orissa Vs. Gokulachandra Kanungo, , Secretary, Works Department, Govt. of Orissa and Others Vs. Ghanashyam Sahu, Secretary, Works Department, Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar v. Ghanshyam Sahu; and State of Orissa Vs. J.N. Choudhury, ). It has not been shown that the grant of interest or any part thereof by the arbitrator was in excess of his jurisdiction or was contrary to law.

I notice from the record of Title Suit No. 46 of 1981 that after dismissing the Misc. Case on 24-3-1982 and after hearing both the sides, judgment has been pronounced on 31-3-1982 decreeing the suit in terms of the award.

I do not see any force in either of the two contentions raised on behalf of the State in this appeal arising out of the order passed in the Miscellaneous Case.

In the result, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100/-,