Contractual bar on interest claims did not exclude arbitrator's power to award pendente lite interest after reference to arbitration.

A contractual clause barring the Commissioner from entertaining claims for interest on delayed payment did not, by itself, exclude the arbitrator's power to award pendente lite interest after reference to arbitration. The clause was construed strictly, and in the absence of express words removing that power, the arbitrator remained competent to interpret the restriction and grant interest on sums legitimately due. The principle reflected in Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, supported compensation for deprivation of money. The award of pendente lite interest was therefore treated as within jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether a contractual clause barring claims for interest before the Commissioner also barred the arbitrator from awarding pendente lite interest.

Analysis: The contract clause was construed strictly. Its language barred the Commissioner from entertaining a claim for interest on delayed payment, but it did not expressly prohibit the arbitrator from granting interest after the dispute was referred to arbitration. The principle underlying Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, supported compensation for deprivation of money legitimately due. The arbitrator, as the chosen forum for resolving all disputes between the parties, was competent to interpret the clause and decide whether it limited the power to award pendente lite interest.

Conclusion: The clause did not prohibit the arbitrator from awarding pendente lite interest, and the award was within jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the contractual restriction did not curtail the arbitrator's authority to grant pendente lite interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A clause merely barring the Commissioner from entertaining interest claims does not, without express words, exclude the arbitrator's power to award pendente lite interest on a claim referred to arbitration.

---