Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') challenging the order dated 4.10.10 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 1, Karauli (hereinafter referred to as 'the court below') in Arbitration Case No. 10/09 (58/05), whereby the court below has dismissed the application of the appellant filed under Section 30 and 33 of the said Act. It appears that in the instant case the respondent was awarded a contract concerning the work of construction of diversion road from 43 to 47 Kms. on Karauli -Mandrayal -Hindaun Road upto Teekhapur Zone -A, vide the agreement No. 29/1984 -85. It further appears that certain disputes had arisen between the parties during the aforesaid execution of the work, for which the matter was referred to the arbitrator. The arbitrator passed the award dated 29th November, 04 holding that the respondent -claimant would be entitled to sum of Rs. 1,85,371/ - with interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount from the date 1.5.90 to the date of award. The appellant being aggrieved by the said award had filed the application under Section 30 and 33 of the said Act raising objections and prayed for setting aside the said award. The said application has been dismissed by the court below vide the impugned order, against which the present appeal has been filed.
(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned Government counsel Mr. Hari Barath for the appellant that the award was passed by the Arbitrator beyond the period of four months, without extension of time either with the consent of the parties or by the court below and therefore, the award itself had vitiated. He also submitted that the court below had failed to appreciate that as per clause 45 of the agreement, the value of work being below Rs. 5 lacs, the escalation clause was not applicable. According to him the rate of interest @ 12% per annum was also on the very higher side and the Arbitration had no authority to award pre -award interest. However, the learned counsel Mr. R.P. Garg for the respondent relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Jatinder Nath Vs. Chopra Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. : 2007 (1) Arb. LR 490 (SC) has submitted that a bare failure of an arbitrator to make an award within the time allowed by law will not involve the consequences of it being set aside only on that ground and that the court has ample power to extend the said time limit under Section 28 of the said Act. He further submitted that the total value of the work was more than Rs. 5 lacs and, therefore, the Arbitrator has rightly awarded the claim under the head of price escalation. Mr. Garg has fairly submitted that the rate of interest be awarded as may be deemed proper by the court.
(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the court below as well as the impugned award made by the Arbitrator, it appears that the award was made by the Arbitrator beyond the period of four months, however as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the court below had the power to extend the said time limit under Section 28 of the said Act. It also appears that the appellant had not raised any objection before the Arbitrator with regard to the said issue and had participated in the proceedings even after the expiry of the said time limit, which implied that the appellant had also consented for the arbitration proceedings beyond the stipulated time limit. The trial court has also rightly relied upon the decision of the Apex Court, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent for the extension of the said time limit.;