are clearly set out and the object of intervention is to prevent miscarriage of justice. The relevant contract was awarded to the respondent in June 2005 and the security deposit was remitted around that time. The contract was terminated in May 2007 and, pursuant to the Award, the security deposit was refunded recently after the institution of the present proceedings. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the grant of interest at 12% per annum, from the date of commencement of arbitration up to the date of Award, results in miscarriage of justice. In Manraj Enterprises, there is nothing in the judgment to indicate that the relevant contract prohibiting the grant of interest was not placed before the arbitral tribunal. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be applied in this context. On the other hand, the ratio of Susaka applies and there is basis to conclude that the petitioners herein waived their contractual right to resist a claim for interest pendente lite by not raising the plea that such claim is prohibited by contract before the Arbitral Tribunal. In addition, as dilated upon earlier, the Award should be tested on the basis of the pleadings and evidence placed before the Arbitral Tribunal, and not evidence produced at the Section 34 stage. This situation is also not analogous to a jurisdictional challenge, which is permitted in a
