SBC MISC. APPEAL NO.150/2003– STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. V/S NOOR MOHD. :JUDGMENT DTD.10.9.2009 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.150/2003 State of Rajasthan and ors. Versus Noor Mohd. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.L.K.Purohit, for the appellants. Mr.Manoj Bhandari, for the respondent. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10th September, 2009. JUDGMENT 1. By this appeal, the appellant - State has challenged the order dtd.30.11.2002 whereby the learned Additional Dist. Judge No.2, Udaipur rejected the application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act and the made aritral award dtd.15.2.1997 as rule of Court with certain modifications. 2. As stated in the impugned order dtd.30.11.2002, the main ground of attack by the appellant – State is that the learned Arbitrator had misconducted himself in the proceedings and had also erred in awarding interest pendente lite on the awarded sum in favour of the respondent – contractor. The appellant – State has also raised objection that since the Arbitrator had retired from the services of the SBC MISC. APPEAL NO.150/2003– STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. V/S NOOR MOHD. :JUDGMENT DTD.10.9.2009 2/3 Department, therefore, he could no longer continue as Arbitrator in the proceedings. 3. As far as appointment of Arbitrator is concerned, that issue is concluded as the learned Dist. Judge himself rejected the said contention of the appellant – State and the appeal filed against the said order was also rejected by this Court, namely CMA No.468/1994, 478/1994 and 479/1994 on 20.9.1994. On the other ground also, there appears to be no force in the appeal of the State. 4. The learned counsel for respondent - Contractor Mr. Manoj Bhandari also pointed out that similar appeal being SBCMA No.299/1999 filed by the appellant – State against the same respondent – contractor was also dismissed by this Court on 10.9.2003. 5. Having heard the learned counsel and upon perusal of the impugned order and the record of the case, this Court is satisfied that there are no specific allegation established by the appellant - State showing the misconduct by the Arbitrator in the impugned arbitral proceedings. Since appointment of arbitrator has already been upheld upto this Court and there is nothing on record to show that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself in the proceedings. This Court does not find any ground to interfere by the impugned order of the SBC MISC. APPEAL NO.150/2003– STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. V/S NOOR MOHD. :JUDGMENT DTD.10.9.2009 3/3 learned Addl. Dist. Judge dtd.30.11.2002 whereby with some modifications, said arbitral award dtd.15.2.1997 was made rule o the Court. 6. As far as award of pendente lite interest is concerned, this controversy is also covered by the decision of this Court in the case of H.P. State Electricity Board V/s R.J. Shah and Company reported in (1999) 4 SCC 214 and the judgment of this Court and therefore, no valid exception can be taken to such award of interest pendente lite. Para 31 of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision about the interest is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Secy., Irrigation Deptt., Govt. of Orissa v. G.C. Roy and State of Orissa v. B.N. Agarwalla there is no merit in the contention that the interest could not be awarded by the arbitrator with effect from 22.12.1976 till the date of payment as per the award. Secy. Irrigation Deptt., Govt. of Orissa v G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508; State of Orissa v. B.N. Agarwall, (1997(2) SCC 469, followed.” 7. In view of the aforesaid, there is no force in the appeal of the State and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.s-3 Ss/-