BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The objections have been filed on behalf of the DDA in respect of the Award dated 23. 09. 1997. Although the learned counsel for the DDA went through the entire Award claim by claim trying to point out deficiencies and / or errors, the main focus has been on the findings in respect of claim No. 7 and the question of interest. Arguments were also advanced at length in respect of claim No. 18. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondents was that the learned arbitrator had not given reasons and has ignored the submissions made on their behalf. At the outset I may observe that this is not the impression that I got when the Award was read. I found that the learned Arbitrator has discussed the arguments of both sides under each claim and given his findings based upon reasons. So, this general objection on the part of the respondents is untenable. ( 2 ) HOWEVER, insofar as the discussion under the head "claim No. 7" is concerned, I find that there are various errors in the Award. The relevant clauses have not been referred to appropriately and the discussion on this aspect appears to be muddled. The issue involved under claim No. 7 is whether the claimant is entitled to an extra amount in respect of work done for putting in place ornamental grills rather than plain grills which was the subject matter of the agreement between the parties. Clause 3. 11 of the Specifications and conditions was pressed into service by the learned counsel for the DDA to show that no distinction is to be made between plain and ornamental grills for payment. However, the learned counsel for claimant submitted that this clause relates only to the rates of steel and not to the labour involved in the fabrication of the grills. It is clear that ornamental grills require more labour than plain grills. It has been recorded by the learned arbitrator that the claimant had put in place ornamental grills and, therefore, he went ahead and awarded an amount of Rs 2,04,378/- as against the claim of Rs 2,50,000/ -. I find that the discussion under claim No. 7 in the Award is not at all clear. It has been recorded by the learned arbitrator that the claimant had put in place ornamental grills and, therefore, he went ahead and awarded an amount of Rs 2,04,378/- as against the claim of Rs 2,50,000/ -. I find that the discussion under claim No. 7 in the Award is not at all clear. In fact, there is no discussion as to under which clause the claimant would be entitled to extra payment. There may be some logic in what the learned counsel for the claimant submits but that has to be borne out by the agreement between the parties. Therefore, insofar as that claim (i. e, claim No. 7) is concerned, I feel that the matter needs to be reconsidered. For this purpose the matter be placed for arbitration afresh on this issue alone before the Superintending engineer (Arbitration) of the DDA. ( 3 ) INSOFAR as the question of interest is concerned, the learned arbitrator has awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum, which in my view is on the excessive side. This is taking into consideration the fact that the interest rates have dropped and declined from what they used to be in early 90's to what they are at present. At one stage the interest rates had fallen to as low as 6% per annum. Therefore, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, I think that the appropriate rate of interest would be 10% per annum. The interest for the future shall also be at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the decree. ( 4 ) AS regards claim No. 18, I find no infirmity with the Award. The entire issue has been discussed in detail and the learned Arbitrator has arrived at the conclusion after giving his reasons. ( 5 ) THUS, with the modification with regard to interest and the claim No. 7, the Award is made a Rule of the Court. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Insofar as the claim No. 7 is concerned, that shall go to the arbitrator, as indicated above, for adjudication afresh. The parties may appear before the said arbitrator on 31. 10. 2007 at 4 pm. This application and suit stand disposed of.