JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be disposed off under the Rules of the Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner Development Authority entered into an agreement dated 26.12.1979 for construction of a Panchayat Bhawan at Qaiserganj, Meerut. A dispute arose between the parties and on the basis of the agreement an Arbitrator was appointed vide order dated 3.3.1991 who has rendered an award dated 6.10.1991 and the same was made Rule of the Court vide order dated 13.8.1996 and the appeal against the same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.5.2001. The award and the two orders of the court below are under challenge in this petition.
4. The only submission raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Arbitrator could not have awarded interest more than 6% in view of para 7-A of the Arbitration Act, 1940, as amended in its application to the State of U.P.
5. It would be relevant to quote the amended para 7-A as below :
"7-A. Where and in so far as an award is for the payment of money, the arbitrators or the umpire may in the award, order interest at such rate as the Arbitrators or Umpire may deem reasonable to be paid on the principal sum awarded, from the date of commencement of arbitration, as defined in Sub-Section (3) of Section 37, to the date of award, in addition to any interest awarded on such principle sum for any period prior to such commencement, with further interest at the rate not exceeding 6% per cent per annum as the arbitrators or umpire may deem reasonable on such principle sum from the date of award to the date of payment or to such earlier date as Arbitrators or the umpire may think fit, but in no case beyond the date of decree to be passed on award."
6. It is apparent that the arbitrator can award interest for the periods, (a) prior to entertaining the reference; (b) pendentelite the arbitration proceedings and, (c) from the date of award to the date of payment or such earlier date but before the date of decree. In para 7-A, the expression with further interest at such rate not exceeding six percent per annum" qualifies the last period, i.e. from the date of award to the date of payment and not the first two periods viz. prior to entertaining the reference and pendentelite.
7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress in a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Union of India v. Chenna Brothers and Company, 2000 (4) A.L.R. 250 to contend that the Arbitrator cannot in any event grant interest of more than 6% for the period prior to the making of the reference or pendentelite. The aforesaid decision was challenged before the Apex Court which after relying upon an earlier decision has held that the Arbitrator is entitled to grant interest at the rate of 18% vide Chenna Brothers & Co. v. Union of India, 2002 (2) J.T. 643. The court relied upon an earlier judgment given in Civil Appeal No. 2337 of 1999 Vidyawati Constructions Company v. Union or India and Ors., decided on 27.11.2001, where it held that, ceiling of interest at 6% per annum is confined to the period from the date of the award to the date of payment and not to the interest pendentelite or prior to the commencement of the arbitration proceedings.
8. Examining the facts of this case, it is evident that the arbitrator has not awarded any interest from the date of award till the date of payment and has only awarded interest at 18% pendentelite and also from the date of entering the reference.
9. Thus, the question raised by the petitioner is no longer resintegra and has already been decided by the Apex Court and as such this petition fails and is dismissed but no order as to costs.