IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Arbitration Case No. 82 of 2003. Judgment reserved on: 12.5.2008 Date of Decision: 3rd June, 2008. Sh. Dawa Lama …..Objector Versus Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud,Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. This objection petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the award made by the Arbitrator on 11.09.2003. The petitioner-claimant raised certain disputes which were referred to the Arbitrator, who decided the same vide impugned award, partly allowing the claim. The award has been challenged on a number of grounds including the ground that it is against the public policy of India because the Arbitrator refused to record reasons as mandated 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - by Section 31 of the Act for each of the claim(s) made by the claimant. It was also urged that the Arbitrator was in error as he has not appreciated the claim that is to say the claims put forth by the claimant in the light of the evidence brought on record. In particular the attention of this court was invited to the findings of the Arbitrator on the calculations of the measurements etc. Learned counsel for the claimants has urged that the claimant was not associated with the measurements to verify the quantum of work executed by him. The last contention put forth was that interest should have been awarded by the Arbitrator as he was statutorily bound to do so. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the award. On the first ground raised, I do not find that the award can be set aside as being opposed to the public policy of India as the Arbitrator has given reasons for each and every one of the conclusions arrived at. The reasons may not be very elaborate but none the less, it cannot be said that the award is in conflict with Section 31 of the Act or that it is opposed to public Policy of India, as the reasons on record are sufficient to justify the claim or disallow it. On the question of measurements etc., the Arbitrator has made a specific reference to Clause 8 and 8 A of the agreement which provides that the contractor’s counter signatures on the measurement books are sufficient to authenticate the record. This argument is therefore, devoid of any merits. It is nobody’s case that the claimant contractor did not sign the measurement books or that his signatures - 3 - were obtained by force, deception etc. The claim for interest of 24% per annum was also made for the amount which, according to the claimant had been wrongly withheld. This submission cannot be accepted as it has been held by the Arbitrator that there is no provision in the contract for award of any interest whatsoever. On the other hand, the parties having specifically contracted out of the obligation to pay interest, if any, cannot now claim it as statutorily payable. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this objection petition which is accordingly dismissed. 3rd June, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud), (cm) Judge.