Sat Pal ( 1 ) BOTH these suits have been filed by M/s. Shiv Kumar and Co. (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. It has been prayed in these suits that the respondent No. 2 who was the Arbitrator in these cases be directed to file the Awards dated 27th and 28th September, 1990 respectively in the court for being made a rule of the court. In both these cases Delhi Development Authority (in short DDA) is the respondent. ( 2 ) AFTER the awards were filed in this court, objections have been filed by the DDA. Since the objections of the DDA are of the identical nature in both the cases, both the suits are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 3 ) AS stated herein above the DDA has raised objections against the awards. These objections are contained in IA 279/91 in Suit No. 3193/90 and IA 1205/91 in Suit No. 3186/90. The following issues were framed : (1) Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds as alleged in the objection petition ? (2) Relief. ( 4 ) AS directed by this court, both the parties have filed their affidavits in support and opposition to the objections against the award. ( 5 ) IN both the cases the DDA has confined its objections with regard to claim numbers 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. With regard to claims 2, 5, 6 and 7 I find that the Arbitrator has given his findings on these claims on the basis of the material on record and the submissions made before him. The findings given by the Arbitrator in respect of these claims are findings of facts. It is settled law that this court cannot disturb the finding of the fact arrived at by an Arbitrator. Here reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and another1. The findings given by the Arbitrator in respect of these claims are findings of facts. It is settled law that this court cannot disturb the finding of the fact arrived at by an Arbitrator. Here reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and another1. Again in the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India2, the Supreme Court has held that the court cannot sit in appeal over the views of the arbitrator by re-exsmining and reassessing the materials. In view of this I do not find any substance in the objections filed by the DDA with regard to claim numbers 2, 5, 6 and 7 the same are dismissed. ( 6 ) WITH regard to claim number 1, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DDA submitted that the contractor continued work beyond the statutory period and it amounts, to extension of contract by mutual consent and as such clause 10 (cc) of the Conditions of Contract will be applicable to the present case and in view of this clause, the contractor was not entitled to any amount on account of compensation and damages due to prolongation of period beyond schedule. She, therefore, contended that the findings of the Arbitrator with regard to claim No. 1 were perverse and the award in respect of this claim was liable to be set aside. In support of her contention the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this court reported as Associated Engineering Co. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh3. ( 7 ) MR. P. C. Markanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contractor, however, drew my attention to Clause 5 of the conditions of the contract wherein it has been stated that if the contractor desires an extension of time for completion of the work on the grounds his having been unavoidable hindered in its execution or any other ground, he shall apply in writing to the Engineer-in-charge within 30 days of the date of such hindrance. He submits that in the present case admittedly the contractor did not apply for extension under clause 5. He, therefore, contended that clause 10 (cc) was not applicable in the present case. ( 8 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. He submits that in the present case admittedly the contractor did not apply for extension under clause 5. He, therefore, contended that clause 10 (cc) was not applicable in the present case. ( 8 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. A bare reading of clause 10 (cc) shows that the said clause is applicable in those cases where the contract is completed within the stipulated period which includes such period for which the contract is valid under the Clause 5 of the contract. In the present case from the findings of the Arbitrator, it is clear that the contractor did not apply for extension under Clause 5 or otherwise and the DDA defaulted in giving timely decision. ( 9 ) IN view of these findings of facts, I hold that clause 10 (cc) is not applicable to the present case. Even otherwise the reasons given by the Arbitrator in respect of the claim number 1 are valid and germane ones Accordingly I do not find any merit in the objections raised by DDA in respect of the claim number 1 and the objections in respect of this claim are also dismissed. ( 10 ) OBJECTIONS against the award having been dismissed both the IAs are also dismissed. The awards dated 27th September, 1990 in Suit No. 3193/90 and dated 28th September, 1990 in Suit No. 3186/90 are made rule of the court. Let decree be drawn in terms of the respective awards in both the cases. The respective award will form a part of the decree. I also grant interest in favour of the contractor at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the award till the date of the decree. I further direct that in case the decretal amount is not paid by the DDA to the contractor within two months from the date of the decree, the contractor shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of the realisation. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.