Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.B. Pattanaik, S. Rajendra Babu, D.P. Mohapatra, Doraiswamy Raju and Shivaraj V. Patil

JUDGMENT

G.B. Pattanaik,J.

1. I have gone through the two judgments of two of my Brother Judges, on the question of the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to grant interest for the period prior to the reference. While Brother Justice Raju has come to the conclusion that the arbitrator does possess the said power, Brother Justice Mohapatra, has taken a contrary view. Having considered both the view points, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the conclusion of Brother Raju, J, and I entirely agree with the conclusion of Brother Mohapatra, J. But in view of the importance of the point, I am tempted to indicate my views in few paragraphs.

2. The power of the arbitrator to award interest for the period prior to entertaining upon the reference as well as the period the reference was pending before him pendente lite was considered by this Court in Thowardas MANU/SC/0070/1955 : [1955]2SCR48 : [1955]2SCR48, and also by the Privy Council in Bengal Nagpur Railway co. Ltd. vs. Ruttanji Ramji. MANU/PR/0193/1937 : (1938)40BOMLR746 in several decisions, which have been referred to by the Constitution Bench in G.C.Roy's case MANU/SC/0142/1992 : [1991]3SCR417 : [1991]3SCR417, the question of power of the arbitrator to award interest has been considered but without any detailed discussion, it has been held that the arbitrator possesses the power since the reference to arbitrator was made by the Court and all the disputes in the suit stood referred. This Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that on the application of the principle of Section