N.K. Das, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the' order of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar making the award of the Arbitrator a Rule of the Court after rejecting the objection raised by the present appellant. There was an agreement relating to 'Construction of road from Handidhua junction to Fertiliser project side including C. D. Works (Roads portion only)' in Dhenkanal. As disputes arose, reference was made to the Arbitrator appointed by the Chief Engineer, The respondent claimed Rs. 11 lakhs and odd but the Arbitrator has passed an award for payment of Rs. 90,159.00.
2. The award is a non-speaking award, The Arbitrator has serialised the different items of contract and on each of theitems he has given his decision of the payments either rejecting the claim or allowing the same amount out of that The contractor claimed nearly about Rs. 11 lakhs and the Government referred a claim of about Rs. 1 lakh. The Arbitrator after considering the claim and the counter-claim has passed the award.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that on particular items of claim the Arbitrator has not given his reasonings and these items relating to dewatering and it is also urged that all the documents have not been taken into consideration by the Arbitrator, and as such, the Arbitrator has misconducted himself.
4. It is well settled that this Court cannot sit in appeal against the award of the Arbitrator and cannot go into details of evidence or documents placed before the Arbitrator and scrutinise the same. The arbitrator is not bound to give reasons for the award. It is sufficient if he has taken into consideration the claims of both parties and has given reasonable opportunities to them and it cannot be said that there was misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator for not assigning reasons for his decision (see State of Orissa v. U. N. Samantray, AIR 1979 Orissa 39).
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the trial Court.
5. A cross appeal has been filed claiming future interest. It is stated that a petition was filed before the Subordinate Judge claiming future interest, but unfortunately no finding has been given by the Subordinate Judge. It is well settled that the claimant is entitled to the benefit of Section 29 of the Act if his claim has been allowed. It has been held in State of Orissa v. Ramachandra Sahu, (1981) 51 Cut LT 333, that the claimant is entitled to the interest subsequent to the decree until recovery of the amount. The same view has also been expressed by this Court in State of Orissa v. S. L. Narayan AIR 1980 Orissa 173, Relying on the aforesaid decision of this Court, I hold that the respondent is entitled to future interest from the date of the decree till the date of payment on Rs. 90,159.00.
6. In the ressult, the misc. appeal is dismissed without cost and the cross-appeal is allowed without cost. The respondent is entitled to future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on Rs. 90,159.00 from the date of decree up to the date of payment.