ivil Appeal No 2472 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 2341987 of the Orissa High Court in MA No 332 of 1984
AK Panda for the Appellant
RK Sahoo for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J
This appeal by special leave by the State of Orissa is directed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court rejecting its appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act
The respondent executed certain work under a written agreement with the appellant and a dispute arose thereunder which was referred to arbitration
The Arbitration made an award which was filed in Court
On service of notice the appellant raised several objections which the trial court overruled
The award was made a rule of the court
After unsuccessfully moving the 368 High Court in appeal the appellant has approached this Court
Except for the objection taken by the appellant on the question of the power of the Arbitrator to grant interest we do not find any merit in the other points decided by the impugned judgment
The decision of the High Court is there fore affirmed on all the other points
So far the question relating to interest is con cerned it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing the respondent s claim in view of the decision in Executive Engineer irrigation Balimela and others vs Abhaduta Jena and Others 1988 1 SCC 418
It was pointed out therein that this Court had in Seth Thawardas Pherumal vs The Union of India  held that in case of direct reference to arbitration without the intervention of a court provisions of neither the Interest Act 1839 nor the Civil Procedure Code applied to an arbitrator as he was not a court and interest could therefore be awarded only if there was an agreement to pay interest or a usage of trade having the force of law or some other provision of the substantive law which entitled the plaintiff to receive interest
On the coming in force of the  although the position in regard to the arbitrator s power to award pendente lite interest continued to be the same he was vested with the jurisdiction to allow interest pior to the proceeding in view of the definition of court in the Act which includes the arbitrator
Accordingly it was held that in cases in which the reference to arbitration was made after the commencement of the new Act that is August 19 1981 the arbitrator may award prior interest but in those cases also he cannot grant pendente lite interest
Since the reference in the case before us was made in March 1982 no objection can be taken to that part of the award whereby the respondent has been allowed the claim of interest for the earlier period
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the arbitrator allowed the past interest twice over
The award is a nonspeaking one and in paragraph 1 it says that the appellant shall pay the claimant Rs 129000 in full satis faction of the claims
In paragraph 2 of the award it is held that the claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the above principal sum of Rs 129000 from 1101978 till the payment of the decree
According to the learned counsel for the appellant the sum of Rs 129000 included the claim of interest also
In view of the clear language of paragraph 2 of the award we reject the argument
369 5
The appellant however is entitled to relief with respect to the pendente lite interest included in the award
The question is as to when this period commences
According to the appellant the period began on the 20th April 1982 when the arbitrator must be deemed to have entered on refer ence
The respondent contends that this period must be held not to have commenced earlier than the 9th of July 1982 when the parties filed their claim and counter claim
The argument is that until the arbitrator applies his mind he cannot be assumed to have entered on arbitration
Reliance has been placed on Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs Unique Erectors Gujarat P Ltd and another  6
Before proceeding further it will be helpful to examine the language of section 3 of the which states that in cases where the conditions mentioned in clauses a and b of sub section 1 are satisfied the Court may allow interest for the past period terminating on the date of institution of the proceedings
By reason ofthe inclusive definition of court in section 2a the Act is applicable to arbitration
The question therefore is as to when the proceeding before an arbitrator is deemed to com mence
It has not been suggested before us that the neces sary conditions for the application of section 3 are not satis fied in the present case and so the respondent is not enti tled to the benefit under 1978 Act and we therefore proceed on the assumption that the provisions of the Act govern the case
The arbitrator in the present case was appointed on 163
He after being informed about his appointment directed the parties to submit their statements of claim by the 20th April 1982
The actual date when this order was made is not known
The contractor respondent filed his statement on 55 1982 and the appellant on 971982
Rely ing on the observation in lossifoglu vs Coumantaros  and those of Raghubar Dayal J in Hari Shankar Lal vs Shambhunath Prasad and others  at page 732 Mr Panda learned counsel for the appellant contended that the arbitrator cannot be said to have entered on the reference earlier than April 20 1982
According to the learned counsel for the respondent it could not be before 97 1982 when the arbitrator applied his mind to the cases of the parties
Reference was made to the decisions of several High Courts
In our view none of these cases is helpful to resolve the present controversy
They all deal with the point as to when an arbitrator is said to enter on reference
They were not concerned with the question as to when a proceeding before an arbitrator is deemed to com mence
370 8
So far an action in a court of law is concerned it must be held that it commences on the filing of a proper claim in accordance with the prescribed procedure before the authority empowered to receive the same
If a plaint drawn up in accordance with the prescribed law is filed before a civil court the suit must be deemed to have been instituted on the date and not on a later date when the court takes up the plaint and applies its mind
Ordinarily the plaint is examined by the stamp reporter of the court who scrutinises whether proper court fee has been paid or not and then makes a report
The court generally takes up the plaint only later
Similar is the position with respect to other appli cations and memoranda of appeals
It must therefore be held that the proceeding is instituted when the claimant files his claim
We do not see any reason to apply a differ ent approach in the case of an arbitration proceeding
As soon as the arbitrator indicates his willingness to act as such the proceeding must be held to have commenced
This aspect did not arise for decision in the cases Executive Engineer Irrigation vs Abhaduta Jena 1988 1 SCC 418 or Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs Unique Erectors Gujarat P Ltd  and no assistance from them can be taken in the present appeal
The learned counsel for the appellant is therefore right in saying that the arbitrator in the present case by directing on 204
1982 the parties to file their statements of claim clearly indicated that he accepted the offer to arbitrate
The proceeding must therefore be deemed to have instituted not later than this date
We accordingly hold that the award so far it allowed interest for the period after 204
1982 is without jurisdiction and must be excluded
The appeal is accordingly allowed in part
The parties shall bear their own costs
Y Lal Appeal partly allowed


Summary:
These two appeals arise out of the judgments in two Election Petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning the election of respondent No 1 as a Member of Parliament from Srikakulam No 1 Parliamentary constituency in the 8th General Election to the House of the People on the ground that Shri N T
Rama Rao the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh as well as respondent No 1 gave certain speeches and certain advertisements were got published by Shri NT Rama Rao through the Publicity Department of the Govt
of Andhra Pradesh in the newspapers containing certain statements which are alleged to amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 1231A of the Representa tion of the People Act 1951
Dismissing the appeals this Court HELD That these advertisements and speeches amount to nothing more than statements extorting the achievements of the Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Telegu Desham party headed by NT Rama Rao Chief Minister and contain normal election promises and these advertise ments donot amount to corrupt practices falling within the scope of sub clause b of clause A of sub section 1 of Section 123 of the said Act
337H 338A Ghasi Ram vs Dal Singh  Ors  at pp
109 110 Bhanu Kumar Shastri vs Mohal Lal Sukhadia  Ors  at p 543 and Harjit Singh Mann vs section Umrao Singh  Ors  at p 510 referred to