- (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High court.
(2.) Two questions fell for consideration in the appeal before the High court: (1 whether to the award of the arbitrator under the Indian Electricity Act of 1910 the substituted provision of S. 7-A under the uttar Pradesh Amendment Act was applicable; and (2 whether the statutory arbitrator had jurisdiction to award interest on the amount found due. The High court found on both the scores against the appellant Board.
(3.) We have heard Mr Sen at length in support of the appeal as also dr Chitale appearing for the respondent. Indisputably, the award of the arbitrator had been rendered prior to the Uttar Pradesh Amending Act by which S. 7-A of the parent Act was substituted and the award was pending before the court to be made a rule under S. 17 of the arbitration Act. This court has taken the view in Satish Kumar v. Surinder Kamar that the award of an arbitrator represents the final adjudication of the claims between the parties and the proceedings under section 17 of the Arbitration Act are a follow up action to make it executable. Logically from the ratio of this judgment it must follow that the award pronounced prior to the amendment was not open to challenge or alteration on the basis of the substituted provision. The first contention of Mr Sen has therefore to be negatived.;