http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DANDASI SAHU

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/07/1988

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) RANGNATHAN, S.

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1791            1988 SCR  Supl. (1) 562  1988 SCC  (4)  12        JT 1988 (3)   364  1988 SCALE  (2)285  CITATOR INFO :  R          1990 SC1128  (5)

ACT:      Constitution of  India, 1950:  Article 136-Decision  of larger bench  pending on  the question  of unreasoned award- Plea to await that decision-Whether could be allowed.      Arbitration Act,  1940: Section 14-Unreasoned award-Not perse bad-Plea  to await  decision of  larger  bench-Whether justified.      Sections 16  and 30-  Whether award  becomes bad merely because the  amount awarded  is  quite  high-Factors  to  be considered-only if  there is  error apparent  on the face of award, can  be remitted  or  set  aside-Validity  of  award- Whether  the  points,  upon  which  arbitrator  adjudicated, covered, by the exception clause in the contract.      Section 29-Interest  pendente  lite-Whether  arbitrator has jurisdiction to award.

HEADNOTE:      The  construction   of  the   Irrigation  Project   was entrusted to  the respondent.  As per  the contract the work commenced on  4th May,  1973 and  was actually  completed on 30th December, 1975, the stipulated date being 4th November, 1974. According  to the  appellant, the  respondent accepted the final  payment and  was duly  paid a sum of Rs.23,74,001 for the  work done by him including the extra work. The last payment was  alleged to  have been made to the respondent in September, 1976.  A ’nil’  bill was  the last bill prepared. Thereafter, the  respondent raised  a claim  and gave notice for appointment of an arbitrator. One Nanda was appointed as the arbitrator  by the Chief Engineer. But on an application made by  the respondent, the Subordinate Judge removed Nanda and appointed  one  Patnaik  as  the  arbitrator.  Again  an application for  removal of the arbitrator was made, but was dismissed.      The Respondent  filed his claims before the arbitrator. These claims  were for  the alleged extra work in respect of which the  decision of  the  Superintending  Engineer  under clause 11  of the  contract  was  final  and  the  same  was excluded from the purview of the arbitration 563

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

clause.  The   appellant  initially   contended   that   the arbitrator had  no jurisdiction to deal with such claims but later filed  a counter  claim, and  denied all the claims of the respondent.  While the  application for  removal of  the arbitrator was  pending, an  adjournment was sought for from the arbitrator and it was refused. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence produced, the arbitrator made a non-speaking and  non-reasoned award  for Rs.15,23,657  plus interest @  10% in  favour of  the respondent. Objections to the award  were filed  in the  Court. The  Subordinate Judge upheld the objection and set aside the award. On appeal, the High Court  set aside  the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and made  the award  rule of the Court, and directed payment of future interest at 6%.      In this  appeal, by  special leave,  against  the  High Court judgment, the appellant-State submitted that the award is without  any reason.  It also  suggested that  since  the validity of  the non-reasoned  award is being gone into by a larger Bench of this Court, that decision should be awaited.      Dismissing the appeal, ^      HELD: 1.1  The law  as it  stands today  is that  award without reasons  is not  bad per se. Indeed, an award can be set aside  only on  the ground  of misconduct or an error of law apparent on the face of the award. [567F]      1.2 In  the instant  case, the  plea that the award was bad being  an unreasoned  one, was neither mooted before the learned Subordinate  Judge nor before the High Court. It was also not  raised  in  the  objection  to  the  award,  filed originally. It  is only  in the  special leave petition that such a  plea has been raised for the first time. Arbitration is restored  to  as  a  speedy  method  of  adjudication  of disputes. Stale  and old  adjudication should  not be set at naught, or  examination of  that question kept at bay on the plea that  the point  is pending  determination by  a larger Bench of  this Court. Even if it is held ultimately that the unreasoned award  per Se is bad, it is not sure whether such a decision  would upset all the awards in this country which have not  been challenged so far. Certainly, in the exercise of discretion  under Article 136 of the Constitution, and in view of  the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would not  be justified  in allowing  the party  to  further prolong or  upset adjudication  of old  and  stale  dispute. [567C-E]      2. Clause  11 of the contract between the parties makes the deci- 564 sion of  the Engineer-in-Charge  final in  respect  of  some issues. Proviso  of Clause  11 stipulates  that in  case  of dispute about  the rates and time for completion of the work and any  dispute as  to proportion  that the additional work bears to  the original  contract work,  the decision  of the Superintending Engineer  of the  Circle would  be final. The points upon  which the  arbitrator in  the instant  case has adjudicated are  not those  which are excepted or covered by Clause 11 of the agreement. ID that view of the matter, this clause has no application in the instant controversy. [570B- D]      Bombay  Housing  Board  (now  the  Maharashtra  Housing Board) v.  Kharbase Naik  & Co., Sholapur, [1975] 3 SCR 407; Chief Administrator, Dandakaranya Project, koraput, Orissa & Anr. v.  M/s. Prabartak  Comercial Corpn. Ltd. Calcutta, AIR 1975 MP  152 and  Food Corporation of India. v. P.L. Juneja, AIR 1981 Delhi 43 distinguished.      State of  orissa v. Gokulchandra Kanungo, [1981] 52 Cut

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

LT 416 referred to.      3.1 It  is well-settled  that when  the parties  choose their own  arbitrator to be the judge in the dispute between them, they  cannot, when  this award  is good on the face of it, object  to the  decision either  upon law  or on  facts. Therefore, when  arbitrator commits  a mistake either in law or in fact in determining the matters referred to him, where such mistake  does not  appear on  the face of the award and the documents appended to or incorporated so as to form part of it,  the award  will neither  be remitted  nor set aside. [571F-G]      3.2 The fact that merely the award amount is quite high or that  a large  amount has  been awarded, does not vitiate the award  as such.  If’ there  is any evidence of malady of racket of  arbitration, the  Court may  scrutinise the award carefully in each such case. [572A-B]      3.3 It  is clear  from the  facts of this case that the arbitrator is  a  highly  qualified  person  having  several Indian and  foreign Degrees  and at  the relevant  time  was acting as  Chief Engineer-in-Charge of the State Government. Having regard to the nature of claims involved, and the fact that the  additional work  has been  done  for  which  large amounts have  been-paid in this case, it is evident that all due opportunities  were given  to the  parties to adduce all evidence.  It   cannot  be   said  that  the  award  was  so disproportionate as  to shock  the conscience  of the  Court leading it  to hold  that the award was bad per Se. The High Court was 565 right in  dismissing the  challenge to  the  award  on  this ground. [572C-D]      Union of  India v.  Bungo Steel  Furniture  Pvt.  Ltd., [1967] 1  SCR 324 and Allen Berry & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, [1971] 3 SCR 282 relied on.      State of  Orissa &  Ors. v.  Gangaram Chhapolia & Anr., AIR 1982 Orissa 277 referred to.      4.1 It  is now  well-settled that the interest pendente lite  is  not  a  matter  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the arbitrator. [572G-H]      4.2 In the instant case, the order of the High Court is modified to  the extent  that the award is confirmed subject to the  deletion of  the interest  pendente lite. It is made clear  that  interest  for  the  period  from  26.9.1981  to 18.3.1983 (the  date of  the award) is deleted. However, the interest granted  by the  High Court  from the  date of  the decree is sustained. [573A-B]      Executive Engineer  (Irrigation), Balimella  & Ors.  v. Abhaduta Jena, [1988] 1 SCC 418, followed.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1389 of 1988.      From the  Judgment and  order  dated  6.7.1987  of  the Orissa High Court in C.M.C. No. 375 of 1984.      R.K. Mehta and Miss Mona Mehta for the Appellant.      G.L. Sanghi and Vinoo Bhagat for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SABYASACHI MUKHARJI,  J. This  is an  appeal by special leave from  the judgment  and order  of the  High  Court  of orissa, dated  6th July,  1987. It  arises out of a contract entered into  between the  State and  the respondent for the construction of  certain  projects  for  irrigation.  During 1973-74  the  respondent  was  entrusted  with  the  job  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

’Construction  of   Ramaguda  Minor  Irrigation  project  in Kukudakhandi Block’  vide agreement  No. 4-F-2. The value of the work  was Rs.9,99,510. The work pursuant to the contract commenced on  4th May,  1973 and  4th November, 1974 was the stipulated date of com- 566 pletion of  the work.  However, on  30th December,  1975 the work was actually completed. It is asserted by the appellant that the  respondent contractor  accepted the  final payment and was duly paid a sum of Rs.23,74,001 for the work done by him including  the extra work. Thereafter, no amount was due to the  respondent, according  to the  appellant, and he did not raise  any claim  whatsoever before  the Department.  On 28th September,  1976 the  last payment  was alleged to have been made  by the respondent. On 30th October, 1976 the last bill  was  prepared  which  was  nil  one.  The  respondent, thereafter, raised  a claim  and gave notice for appointment of an arbitrator. Consequently, the Chief Engineer appointed one Shri  A.N. Nanda  as the  arbitrator  in  terms  of  the arbitration clause.  However,  on  the  application  of  the respondent the  learned Subordinate  Judge removed  Shri A.N Nanda and  appointed one  Shri B. Patnaik as the arbitrator. It may  be mentioned  that  the  application  was  made  for removal of  the arbitrator  Shri B. Patnaik but the same was ultimately dismissed.  Before the arbitrator, the respondent filed the  claim raising some claims which, according to the appellant, were  fictitious and  baseless. These claims were for the  alleged extra work in respect of which the decision of the  Superintending  Engineer  under  clause  11  of  the contract was  final and  the  same  was  excluded  from  the purview of the arbitration clause.      It was  contended on  behalf of  the appellant that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to deal with such claims. The appellant filed a counter claim for Rs.2,11,400, denying all the claims of the respondent. All the documents and relevant papers were  produced before  the arbitrator.  It is  stated that as  the application  for removal  of Shri B. Patnaik as arbitrator was  pending, an application had been made before Shri S.  Patnaik to adjourn the proceeding which was refused and the  award was made. This award was claimed to have been made virtually  ex parte.  This, however,  was not so and it appeared that  the arbitrator  on hearing  the  parties  and considering the evidence produced before him made the award. The arbitrator  made the  said award on 18th March, 1983 but the same was a non-speaking and nonreasoned award for a lump sum of  Rs.15,23,657 plus  interest @ 10% from 9.9.1975 till the date  of payment or decree. Objections to the said award were filed  in the  Court.  The  learned  Subordinate  Judge upheld the objection to the award and set aside the award on 15th September,  1984. There was an appeal to the High Court and the  High Court  set aside  the judgment  of the learned Subordinate Judge and made the award of the arbitrator, rule of the  Court. It  also directed payment of further interest at 6%. 567      Being  aggrieved   thereby  the  State  of  Orissa  has preferred this  appeal. In  support of  this appeal,  it was submitted that the award in question was a lump sum af money and it  was without any reason, in favour of the respondent. It was  also submitted that the validity of the non-reasoned award is  awaiting determination  by a  larger Bench of this Court. Hence,  it was  urged that this question should await decision of the larger Bench. In the facts and circumstances of the  case, we  are of  the opinion  that we  would not be justified in  acceding to  this request  on the  part of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

appellant. In  this case  the submission  that the award was bad being  an unreasoned  one, was neither mooted before the learned Subordinate  Judge nor  before the  High Court. This contention was  also not  raised in  the  objection  to  the award, filed  originally. It  is only  in the  special leave petition that  such a  plea has  been raised  for the  first time. Arbitration  is resorted  to as  a  speedy  method  of adjudication of  disputes. Stale and old adjudication should not be set at naught or examination of that question kept at bay on the plea that the point is pending determination by a larger Bench  of this  Court. Even  if it is held ultimately that the  unreasoned award  per se  is bad,  it is  not sure whether such  a decision  would upset all the awards in this country which have not been challenged so far. Certainly, in the exercise  of our  discretion under  Article 136  of  the Constitution and  in view  of the facts and circumstances of this case,  we would  not be justified in allowing the party to further  prolong or  upset adjudication  of old and stale disputes.      In that  view of the matter, we think that the pendency of this  point before  the larger  Bench should not postpone the adjudication and disposal of this appeal in the facts of this case.  The law as it stands today is that award without reasons are  not bad  per se.  Indeed, an  award can  be set aside only on the ground of misconduct or on an error of law apparent on  the face of the award. This is the state of law as it  is today  and in that context the contention that the award being an unreasoned one is per se bad, has no place on this aspect as the law is now. This contention is rejected.      It was  next contended that in view of clause 11 of the contract  the   matters  upon   which  the   arbitrator  has adjudicated were  excluded and these were not arbitrable. It was submitted  that clause  11 of  the contract  between the parties made  on these  matters the decision of the Engineer Incharge  final   and  binding.   Hence,  inasmuch   as  the arbitrator has  purported to  act upon  this field which was only to  be decided by the Engineer-in-charge, the award was bad. The disputes over which the arbitrator has purported to make an award, were regarding 568 works covered  by the  agreement. lt  was submitted that the provision  to  clause  11  af  the  agreement  categorically provided that  in the  event of  dispute over  a  claim  for additional work, the decision of the Superintending Engineer of the  Circle would  be final and, hence, the arbitrator by entertaining the  additional claim  of  the  contractor  had exercised a  jurisdiction not  vested in  him and,  as such, misconducted himself.      In order  to judge  this contention,  therefore, it  is Imperative first  to refer to clause 11 of the agreement. It provides as follows:           "Clause 11-The  Engineer-in-charge shall  have the           power to  make any  alteration in  or additions to           the original specifications, drawings designs, and           instructions that  may appear  to him necessary or           advisable during  the progress  of  work  and  the           contractor shall be bound to carry out the work in           accordance with  any  instructions  which  may  be           given to him in writing signed by the Engineer-in-           charge and  such alteration  shall not  invalidate           the  contract.   Any  additional  work  which  the           contractor may  be directed  to do  in the  matter           above specified  as part  of the  work,  shall  be           carried  out   by  the   contractor  on  the  same           conditions in  all respects  on which he agreed to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

         do the  main work  and at  the same  rates as  are           specified in  the tender  for the  main work.  The           time for  the completion  of  the  work  shall  be           extended in  the proportion  that  the  additional           work bears  to the  original contract work and the           certificates of  the Engineer  in charge  shall be           conclusive  as  to  such  proportion  and  if  the           additional work  includes any  class of work shall           be  carried  out  at  the  rates  entered  in  the           sanctioned  schedule  of  rates  of  the  locality           during the  period when  the work being carried on           and if  such last  mentioned class  of work is not           entered  in  the  schedule  of  the  rate  of  the           district, then  the contractor shall within 7 days           intimate the  rate which  it is  his intention  to           charge for such class of work and if the Engineer-           in-charge does  not agree to this rate he shall by           notice in  writing be  at liberty  to  cancel  his           order to  carry out such class of work and arrange           to carry  such class  of work and arrange to carry           out in  such manner  as he may consider advisable.           No deviation  from the specification stipulated in           the contract  or additional  items of  work  shall           ordinarily be carried by the contractor and should           any altered,  additional or  substituted  work  be           carried  out  by  him  unless  the  rates  of  the           substituted, altered or additional 569           items have  been approved  as fixed  in writing by           the Engineer-in-charge.                The contractor  shall be  bound to submit his           claim for  any additional  work  done  during  any           month or  before the  15th day  of  the  following           months accompanied  by the  copy of  the order  in           writing  of   the   Engineer-in-Charge   for   the           additional work  and that the contractor shall not           be entitled  to any  payment in  respect  of  such           additional work  if he  fails to  submit his claim           within the aforesaid period.                Provided it  always that  if  the  contractor           shall commence  work or  incur any  expenditure in           regard thereof  before the  rates will  have  been           determined as lastly herein before mentioned, then           in such  case he shall only be entitled to be paid           in respect  of the  determination of  the rates as           aforesaid accordingly  to such  rate of  rates  as           shall be  fixed by  the Engineer-in-Charge. In the           event  of   a  dispute   the   decision   of   the           Superintending Engineer  of  the  Circle  will  be           final. "      This clause  has to  be read  in conjunction  with  the arbitration  clause   i.e.  clause  23,  which  provides  as follows:           "Clause 23: Except where otherwise provided in the           contract all  questions and  disputes relating  to           the meaning  of the  specifications,  designs  and           instructions hereinbefore  mentioned and as to the           quality of  workmanship or  materials used  on the           work or  as to  any other  question, claim,  right           matter, or thing whatsoever in any way arising out           of, or  relating to the contract, designs, drawing           specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or           these conditions or otherwise concerning the works           or the  execution or  failure to  execute the same           whether arising  during the  progress of  work, or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

         after the  completion or abandonment thereof shall           be  referred   to  the   sole  arbitration   of  a           Superintending Engineer  of the Circle. It will be           no objection  to any  such  appointment  that  the           arbitrator so  appointed is  a Government servant.           The award  of the arbitrator so appointed shall be           final. conclusive  and binding  on all  parties to           this contract.      The learned Subordinate Judge was inclined to hold that the 570 arbitrator had  no jurisdiction  to  arbitrate  on  disputes which he  has purported  to do  but in  view  of  the  Bench decision of  the High  Court of Orissa in State of orissa v. Gokulchandra Kanungo, [1981] 52 CLT 416, he held that he was not free  to decide  that the dispute was not arbitrable and rejected this  plea. The  High Court  also did not entertain this objection.  It was  canvassed before  us and  submitted that in  view of  clause 11,  the matters in dispute and the amount  due  for  the  alleged  additional  work,  were  not arbitrable at all. We have noticed clause 11 which makes the decision of  the Engineer-in-Charge final in respect of some issues. In  this connection, it is important to refer to the proviso of  Clause 11  which states  that in case of dispute about the  rates and time for completion of the work and any dispute as  to proportion  that the additional work bears to the  original   contract   work,   the   decision   of   the Superintending Engineer  of the  Circle would  be final. The points upon  which the  arbitrator in  the instant  case has adjudicated are  not those  which are excepted or covered by Clause 11 of the agreement. In that view of the matter, this clause has no application in the instant controversy.      Our attention was drawn to certain observations of this Court in  Bombay Housing  Board (Now the Maharashtra Housing Board) v. Karbhase Naik & Co., Sholapur, s [1975] 3  SCR 407.  There in  view of  clause 14 of the said contract, it was open to the respondent to make claim on the basis of the rates quoted. There, Clause 14 was more or less identical to  Clause 11 in the present case. This particular contention, however,  did not  arise in that case. The Court held that  the respondent  there being  contractor, was  not bound to  carry out additional or altered work and there was no reply  to the  notice stating  the rates  intended to  be charged and  the respondent  there was  not free to commence and complete  the work  on the  basis that  since the  rates quoted were  not accepted, it would be paid at such rates to be fixed  by the  Engineer-in-charge  and  that  if  it  was dissatisfied with  the rate  or rates fixed by the Engineer- in-charge,   it   could   raise   a   dispute   before   the Superintending  Engineer   and  that   the  time  limit  for completion would  be  extended  in  all  cases.  This  Court observed that  only the rates were settled by the agreement. The respondents  were under  no obligation  to carry out the additional or  altered work  but that  is  not  the  dispute before us in the present case. On the construction of Clause 11 of  the contract,  we are unable to accept the contention but on  the points  that the  arbitrator has awarded in this case, were  excluded by  Clause 11  of the  contract herein. Shri Mehta, however, strongly relied on certain observations of a  Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of the Chief Administrator, Dandakaranya Project, 571 Koraput, Orissa  & Anr.  v. M/s. Prabartak Commercial Corpn. Ltd. Calcutta,  AIR 1975  MP 152,  wherein while considering Clause 13A  of the  agreement there the High Court held that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

the  dispute  whether  charges  for  stone  chips  could  be adjudicated, was  not arbitrable.  That was  a case of rates which was  within the jurisdiction of the Engineer-in-charge by Clause  13A of  the bargain  between the  parties. In the instant case  it is  not the  rate which  is in dispute. The Madhya Pradesh  High Court  referred to several decisions of this type  and came to the conclusion on the construction of Clause 13A  in that  case that  the dispute  that had arisen between the  parties in  arbitration, was excluded by Clause 13A of  the agreement.  In view of the Clause in the instant case and  the nature of the dispute which had arisen, we are of the  opinion that  such decisions  also cannot  give much assistance to  the appellant.  Reliance was  also placed  on certain observations  of the Delhi High Court in the case of Food Corporation of India v. P.L. Juneja, AIR 1981 Delhi 43. There the  Division Bench  of the  High Court  was concerned with the questions which were to be decided by the Court and not by  the arbitration. There also the Clause was very much dissimilar to the present one which is set out hereinbefore. Clause 15(c) provided that the question whether a particular service is  or is  not to  be covered by any of the services specifically described  and provided for the contract, or is or is  not material to any such services shall be decided by the Regional  Manager whose  decision  shall  be  final  and binding. It was not the case whether any additional work was done and  if so,  the extent  of such work. In the aforesaid view of  the matter  it is not possible to hold that in view of nature  of instant dispute, the matters at issue were not excluded and  the arbitrator  did not  commit any  wrong  in proceeding with the arbitration.      It was  next contended  that an  amount of Rs.15,23,657 has been  granted for  additional work  over and  above  the payment of Rs.23,74,001 and this was disproportionately high and the  award for  this amount  was per se bad. It is well- settled that when the parties choose their own arbitrator to be the  judge in dispute between them, they cannot, when the award is  good on  the face  of it,  object to  the decision either upon  law or  on facts.  Therefore,  when  arbitrator commits a  mistake either  in law  or in fact in determining the matters  referred to  him, where  such mistake  does not appear on  the face  of the award and the documents appended to or  incorporated so as to form part of it, the award will neither be  remitted nor set aside. The law on this point is well-settled. See  in this  connection the  observations  of this Court  in Union  of lndia  v. Bungo  Steel Furniture P. Ltd., [1967]  1 SCR  324 and  Allen Berry  & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, [1971] 3 SCR 572 282. It was, however, contended that the amount of the award was shockingly  high that  it shocked  the conscience of the Court and  the award must be set aside. The fact that merely the award  amount is  quite high  as commented  by the  High Court or  that a  large amount  has been  awarded, does  not vitiate the  award as such. In the instant case the original award was  for Rs.9,99,510.  Admittedly, additional work was done  and   payment  for   such  work   was  determined   at Rs.23,74,001 and  claim for further additional work was made for Rs.  15,23,657. One  has to  judge whether the amount of the award  was so  disproportionately high to make it per se bad in  the facts and circumstances of a particular case. It is clear  from the  facts that  the arbitrator  is a  highly qualified person  having several  Indian and foreign Degrees and at  the relevant  time was  acting as Chief Engineer-in- charge of  the State Government. Having regard to the nature of claims involved and the fact that the additional work has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

been done for which large amounts have been paid and in this case it  is evident that all due opportunities were given to the parties  to adduce all evidence, we are unable to accept the submission  that the award was so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court and, as such, it cannot be held that the award was bad per se. In our opinion, the High Court was  right in dismissing the challenge to the award on this ground.      In support  of the  submission that  the award  must be held to be bad in this case, Mr. Mehta drew our attention to certain observations of Orissa High Court in State of Orissa & Ors.  v. Gangaram  Chhapolia &  Anr., AIR 1982 Orissa 277, where at  page 279  the learned Judge observed the malady of the racket  of arbitration was rampant in Orissa. Though the learned Judge  was apparently heeding to the observations of Justice Holmes  of America  observed that  the Court  should take note of "the felt necessities of the time".      In our  opinion, the  evidence of such state of affairs should make  this Court  scrutinise the  award carefully  in each particular  case but  that  does  not  make  the  Court declare that  all high amounts of award would be bad per se. As mentioned hereinbefore, it cannot be said that the amount of award  was disproportionately high to hurt the conscience of the Court in this case.      It is  now well-settled that the interest pendente lite is not  a matter  within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. In this connection reference may be made to the observations of this Court in Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Balimela & Ors., v.  Abhaduta Jena  & Ors., [1988] 1 SCC 418 where this Court held that the arbitrator could not 573 grant interest  pendente lite.  In the aforesaid view of the matter this A direction in the award for the payment of such interest must  be deleted  from the  award. The order of the High Court  is modified  to the  extent that  the  award  is confirmed subject to deletion of the interest pendente lite. We make it clear that in the facts of this case interest for the period from 26.9.81 to 18.3.83, the date of the award be deleted. The  High Court has, however, granted interest from the date of the decree. That is sustained.      The appeal  is,  therefore,  dismissed  except  to  the extent indicated  above. In  the facts  and circumstances of the case the parties will pay and bear their own costs. G.N.                                       Appeal dismissed. 574