Usha Mehra ( 1 ) M/s. R. P. Builders entered into an agreement No. 2/ee/cd XII/84-85 for the construction of 225 type I quarters for DMS staff at Hari Nagar, New Delhi. The agreement was executed for and on behalf of Union of India by the Executive Engineer (Construction Division No. XII), CPWD, IP Bhawan, New Delhi. The said agreement contained an arbitration clause stipulating therein that in case of disputes or differences the matter shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator, a person to be appointed by the competent authority, for arbitration. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties the matter and disputes were referred in terms of the arbitration clause to Shri N. H. Cbandwani the Sole Arbitrate. The Arbitrator made and published his award on 25th November, 1988. ( 2 ) THE award was filed in the court for making it a rule of the court in pursuance to the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act. Notice of filing of the award was duly issued to the Executive Engineer and to the Union of India which was duly served. The Union of India filed objections to the award made and published by the Arbitrator. Objections to the award against claim numbers 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 18 are primarily based on the fact that Arbitrator has not considered the arguments of the objector and relied on irrelevant documents. There is of course no allegation on the integrity of the Arbitrator. Objections are mainly based on the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Arbitrator. ( 3 ) CLAIM No. 1 is with regard to the work done on account of excavation in hard soil but wrongfully paid under soft soil by the department. The challenge to this award is on the ground that the Arbitrator has relied on the provision of the National Building Code (Ex. R-l in the arbitration proceedings ). In fact, according to the objector, the Arbitrator ought not to have relied on the National Building Code nor could compare the same with the soil investigation report (Ex. R-2) for the purpose of calculating the actual N-value of the soil at the site of work. R-l in the arbitration proceedings ). In fact, according to the objector, the Arbitrator ought not to have relied on the National Building Code nor could compare the same with the soil investigation report (Ex. R-2) for the purpose of calculating the actual N-value of the soil at the site of work. The error according to object or is that the National Building Code takes into consideration "n-value based on Cone Penetration Test (CPT)" while the soil investigation report speaks of N-value which is based on the Standard Penetrator Test (SPT ). According to objector, the Arbitrator could not have compared the two i. e. . National Building Code and Soil Investigation Report because both are based on two distinctively different tests. The CPT and SPT values are totally different but the Arbitrator has tried to compare the same, therefore, he committed error. The Award against this claim shows that the Arbitrator has taken comparative factors into consideration. He took into consideration soil investigation report to arrive at the conclusion that soil was soft-loose. For the purpose of defining what is a dense soil he referred to compactness of non-cohesive soil as recommended in the National Building Code (C-42) which classified the soft as dense soil if number of blows (N) is more than 30. This docs not mean that by referring to National Building Code for purposes of soil classification the Arbitrator committed any error. The Arbitrator while dealing claim No. 1 has taken into consideration the documentary evidence placed before him and it is only after considering those documents that he came to the conclusion that the soil at site could not be classified as a soft/loose. In fact the Arbitrator is the sole Judge of facts. ( 4 ) THE objector has not been able to point out as to why the Arbitrator could not rely on the soil investigation report or by which rules he was debarred from comparing the two Codes. Nothing has been shown to this court that the Arbitrator could not have compared the two Codes or the value as the case may be. Hence, I find no force in this objection of the objector. Nothing has been shown to this court that the Arbitrator could not have compared the two Codes or the value as the case may be. Hence, I find no force in this objection of the objector. ( 5 ) SIMILARLY, I find no force in the objection against claim No. 2 where the Arbitrator has given reasons for arriving at the conclusion that since the work involved a number of curves resulting in more labour and welding than required for plain grill and therefore he awarded the amount. For arriving at this conclusion he relied on R-47 and R-48 and took into consideration that there were multiple curves made in order to maintain correct geometrical shape so that proper design should be maintained. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Arbitrator has not given any reasons for awarding the amount of Rs. 28,944 against this claim. ( 6 ) SO far as challenge to claim No. 5 by the Union of India on the ground that the performance test was never carried out by the contractor. That has been repelled by the Arbitrator on the ground that condition No. l-OA on page 97 of the agreement does not authorise department to withhold amount for testing of water supply/sewerage installations and minor defects as was done in the final bill of this ease Ex. R-35. He also came to the conclusion that the letter Ex. R-45 dated 30th June, 1987 issued by the Assistant Engineer was only in the nature of direction to employ sufficient labour to complete the final checking and testing of water supply, sanitary installations etc. He after taking into consideration all the aspects of the case came to the conclusion shat Ex. R-45 dated 30th June, 1987 was not a notice for withholding the balance of Rs. 5,000 particularly when part payment of Rs. 2,500 had already been made. In view of this reasoning it cannot be said that the Arbitrator has ignored any documentary evidence or having taken note of the various submissions made by the parties. He also came to the conclusion that there was no failure on the part of the contractor from performing his obligation on this account. I find no reason to interfere with this reasoning of the Arbitrator which is based on the evidence led before him. He also came to the conclusion that there was no failure on the part of the contractor from performing his obligation on this account. I find no reason to interfere with this reasoning of the Arbitrator which is based on the evidence led before him. ( 7 ) SIMILARLY, against claim No. 6 the Arbitrator did not justify the withholding the balance amount of Rs. 1,000 particularly when the first bill had already been paid on 31st March, 1987 after recording of completion certificate by the Department. This amount was withheld on the ground that after completion certificate was issued then it will be released. The Arbitrator came to the conclusion that completion certificate was recorded on 31st March, 1987, therefore, there was no justification for withholding this amount. The objector has not been able to point out what is the error in the reasoning given by the Arbitrator in this account. ( 8 ) REGARDING claim numbers 8 and 10, no error apparent on the face of award is indicated. The reasoning given by the Arbitrator is on the basis of material placed before him. It is not the case of the objector that it had received complaints fromlabourers against the contractor for non-payment. Therefore, withholding the amount of Rs. 1. 000 on account of labour claim certificate was not found justified by the Arbitrator as no documentary evidence was placed before him to justify the withholding of the same. Similarly, in claim No. 10, the Arbitrator upheld the single recovery made by the Department on account of the variation of GI and SCI pipes but did not favour further withholding of the amount on this account. There appears no error apparent in the reasoning given by the Arbitrator. ( 9 ) REGARDING claim No. 12 Contractor had claimed extra rates for work done after stipulated date of completion for which he was not paid. Arbitrator took into consideration the documentary evidence placed before him namely Ex. C-l, letter issued by the contractor dated 17th July, 1984 in which the contractor had given the details of expansion joints yet not supplied by the Department as a result of which he could not do excavation of blocks having expansion joints. Similarly, Arbitrator from the documentary evidence found that the roof slabs could nut be laid due to non laying of electrical conduits and shuttering which was apparent from Ex. C-34. Similarly, Arbitrator from the documentary evidence found that the roof slabs could nut be laid due to non laying of electrical conduits and shuttering which was apparent from Ex. C-34. Similarly, there was shortage of bricks (Ex. C-35, C-6) ; non-availability of 10 mm/8 mm diameter Tor steel (C-34, C-35, C-36, C-37, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9) ; non supply of GI pipes (C-28) ; delay in laying of electric-conduits (C-34, C-36) and delay in supply of drawing for grills (C-6, C-9 and C-35 ). After considering these factors and the fact that rates had gone beyond the amount worked out under the contract he made the award. He also took into consideration various material placed on record and also the submissions made by the parties vide Ex. R-33 dated 23rd March, 1987. The claim of the petitioner was for Rs. 2,70,000 but Arbitrator after going through the oral submissions and documentary evidence, awarded an amount of Rs. 98,500. While awarding this amount he came to the conclusion that there was a delay on the part of the department and department could not escape its liability while relying on Ex. R-33. This court is not sitting in appeal nor can reassess the evidence placed before the Arbitrator. ( 10 ) THE question of legal and admissible evidence does not arise particularly when there was evidence before the Arbitrator on the basis of which he came to the finding and delivered his award. The error in law on the face of the award means that one can find in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto stating the reasons for his judgment and some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which is erroneous. The finding based on evidence cannot be set aside merely on the allegation that there is an error in the award. ( 11 ) SO far as claim No. 16 is concerned, the contractor s claim is on account of losses suffered due to prolongation of the contract on account of idle labour, T and P and establishment and also loss of business. The amount claimed was to the time of Rs. 1,40,000. The Arbitrator while coming to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs. The amount claimed was to the time of Rs. 1,40,000. The Arbitrator while coming to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 56,000 relied on the discussion and evidence led against claim No. 12 and came to the conclusion that completion of work was delayed due to default on the part of the department. It is the department who committed the breach of the contract. From the documentary evidence placed before him he further came to the conclusion that the petitioner had informed the department from time to time vide various letters that he would be claiming the losses and damages suffered by him on this account. He also came to the conclusion that the extention of time was not by mutual consent. The objection of the Objector/uol is that the Arbitrator gave this award without giving any reasons. 1 find no force in this submission because he has given reasons and he has also relied on the evidence placed before him. ( 12 ) SO far as claim No. 17 is concerned. Arbitrator has awarded future interest at the rate of 12%. This the Arbitrator had no power to award. The Arbitrator can only award pre-suit interest but not the pendents lite or future. Therefore, having awarded future interest till realisation he. acted beyond his jurisdiction and therefore to my mind the Arbitrator committed an error by awarding the future interest in the award. Therefore claim No. 17 on this account is liable to be set aside. ( 13 ) SO far as award of costs is concerned there is no bar for the Arbitrator to award costs. Schedule I Para 8 of Arbitration Act provides that the Arbitrator has the discretion to award the costs. Therefore, so far as claim No. 18, the Arbitrator had the discretion to award cost and he has awarded costs of Rs. 2,000. This was within his jurisdiction and having exercised his jurisdiction it cannot be called erroneous nor can be called error apparent on the face of the award. ( 14 ) IT is a well settled principle of law that where the Arbitrator indicates his reasons for coming to. a conclusion, the court cannot look. into the sufficiency and quality of the evidence adduced before him on the basis of which the Arbitrator came to that particular conclusion. ( 14 ) IT is a well settled principle of law that where the Arbitrator indicates his reasons for coming to. a conclusion, the court cannot look. into the sufficiency and quality of the evidence adduced before him on the basis of which the Arbitrator came to that particular conclusion. Regarding the sufficiency and quality of the evidence adduced before him, the Arbitrator is the sole Judge of the same. The court is not permitted to re-appraise the evidence. ( 15 ) THE reasonableness of the reasons given by the Arbitrator cannot be challenged. It may be possible that on the same evidence court might have arrived at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Arbitrator but that by itself is no ground for setting aside the award. It will not be for this court to take on itself the task of being a Judge of the evidence before the Arbitrator. Under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, an award can be set aside only on the grounds contained therein. These pertains to improperness or invalidity of the award and misconduct of the proceedings by the Arbitrator. The decision of theArbitrator who is the chosen Judge of the parties is final and cannot be set aside provided there is no error apparent on the face of the award. ( 16 ) IN the instant case it cannot be said that there was no material before the Arbitrator to come to the conclusions to which he ultimately arrived at. He being the sole Judge of facts has rendered this award and has also given reasons. He has not based his award merely on the asking of the petitioner but has taken into consideration both sides view and then arrived at the figure which he considered to be correct according to his estimation. In such like eventualities when the Arbitrator has given well considered reasons, it is not open for this court to sit on judgment over his award. No legal error is pointed out in the Award. ( 17 ) FOR the reasons stated above, except against claim No. 17 which claim I have already set aside, I find no error on the fact of the award with regard to rest of the claims nor I find that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself because I find that there was sufficient material before him to come to the conclusion. This court cannot also say that his reasons are bad or are extraneous. Hence, the objections are hereby rejected except the objection against claim No. 17. Claim No. 17 is separable and has no bearing on other claims, hence the award as a whole cannot be vitiated. ( 18 ) IN view of my above findings the award made and published by the Arbitrator except claim No. 17 is hereby made a rule of the court. I further direct that the petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the award till realisation.