Cross-objections and pre-reference interest under arbitration law were limited by statute and could not be expanded procedurally.

Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was treated as procedural only and not as conferring a substantive right to file cross-objections in an appeal under Section 39, so Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be invoked to sustain them. Pre-reference interest, even when described as damages, was payable only if authorised by agreement or by the Interest Act, 1978, and the claimed pre-reference component was set aside. The arbitrator remained competent to award pendente lite and future interest, which was upheld in principle.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a cross-objection is maintainable in an appeal under the Arbitration Act, 1940 by virtue of Section 41 of that Act and Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the arbitrator could award pre-reference interest, described as damages, and interest thereon.

Issue (i): Whether a cross-objection is maintainable in an appeal under the Arbitration Act, 1940 by virtue of Section 41 of that Act and Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was examined on the footing that an appeal is a substantive right created by statute, while cross-objection is an appeal-like remedy that may be treated as a cross-appeal only when the governing law permits it. Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was held to make the procedural provisions of the Code applicable to proceedings and appeals under the Act, but not to create a new substantive right of cross-objection. Since the Act itself did not confer such a right in appeals under Section 39, Order 41 Rule 22 could not be imported to enlarge the appellate remedy.

Conclusion: Cross-objections were not maintainable in the appeal under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the High Court was not correct in entertaining them.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitrator could award pre-reference interest, described as damages, and interest thereon.

Analysis: Pre-reference interest could be awarded only if authorized by agreement or permitted under the Interest Act, 1978. The amount described as damages was in substance interest for the period prior to reference, and interest on that amount for the pre-reference period was not justified on the record. However, the arbitrator was competent to award pendente lite and future interest.

Conclusion: The award of pre-reference interest dressed as damages was set aside, while the award of pendente lite and future interest was upheld in principle.

Final Conclusion: The decision partially relieved the appellant by rejecting the cross-objections and by removing the impermissible pre-reference interest component, while leaving the permissible interest award otherwise intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is procedural and does not by itself confer a substantive right to file cross-objections in an appeal under Section 39; pre-reference interest can be awarded only if supported by agreement or by the Interest Act, 1978.

---