- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arises for our consideration is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the award by reducing the amount for the work done as well as allowing the interest only from the date of notice demanding the amount.
(3.) The appellant - Contractor undertook the work of transportation of waste and finished products within the plant of the respondent-company commencing from 16-4-1982 to 31-3-1983. The agreement in respect of that contract was executed by both the parties on 8-6-1982. As certain disputes arose between the parties in respect of transportation work the appellant issued notices to the respondent calling upon them to settle the bills and claims raised by him. As the respondent failed to settle the bills, the appellant moved the City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. Mr. Justice K. Punnayya (retired Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh) was appointed as Sole Arbitrator by order dated 31-10-1985. The learned Arbitrator by order dated 31-10-1985. The learned Arbitrator by the award dated 1-8-1986, after giving opportunity to both the parties, determined the amount of Rs. 5, 29,864.55 as payable by the respondent - Company to the appellant. In addition to that the Arbitrator also awarded interest at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum on the said amount from 1-4-1983 till the date of award being made the rule of Court.;