Mohd. Shamim ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 14, 17 and 29 ofthe Arbitration Act for issue of a direction to the petitioner to file the Awardand that the same be made a rule of the Court. ( 2 ) THE Award was filed before this Court on 30/01/1991as is manifest from the order sheet of the said date. ( 3 ) THE petitioner did not file any objections against the Award butthe respondent, on the other hand. chose to file objections through theirinterim application bearing I A. No. 10558/92. The petitioner filed a replythereto. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent, Mr. EX. Joseph, has raiseda preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the presentpetition as this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. However,he did not press the same during the course of his arguments. In view of theabove I need not dilate on this point any further. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent has next contended that thearbitrator has mis-conducted himself and the proceedings and did not giveproper reasoning while awarding a sum of Rs. 2,04,423. 00 to the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel the Award is based on insufficient evidence. He has argued that there was absolutely no evidence before the Arbitratorto award the said amount to the petitioner. Learned Counsel in support ofhis argument has let me through the observations of their Lordships of thesupreme Court, as reported in K. P. Poulose v. Stale of Kerala and Another, (1975) 2 Supreme Court Cases 236. It was observed in the said authority bytheir Lordships: " (c) Under Section 39 (a) of the Arbitration Act anaward can be set aside when an Arbitrator has misconducted himself or theproceedings. Misconduct under Section 3 (a) has not a cannotation ofmoral lapse. It comprises legal misconduct which is complete if thearbitrator on the face of the award arrives at an inconsistent conclusion evenon his own finding or arrives at a decision by ignoring very material documents which throw abundant light on the controversy to help a just andfair decision. It is in this sense that the Arbitrator has misconducted theproceedings in this case. " ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has argued that there was noevidence before the Arbitrator that the petitioner maintained an establishment and an such incurred expenses thereon to the tune of Rs. 74. 400. It is in this sense that the Arbitrator has misconducted theproceedings in this case. " ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has argued that there was noevidence before the Arbitrator that the petitioner maintained an establishment and an such incurred expenses thereon to the tune of Rs. 74. 400. 00 asthere was a delay on the part of the respondent. Thus according to thelearned Counsel for the respondent, the Arbitrator fell into a grave error byawarding the said amount to the Contractor. I am sorry I am unable toagree with the contention of the Ld. counsel, I have very carefully gonethrough the Award and the findings of the Arbitrator on the said point. Thearbitrator has given very cogent reasons for arriving at his conclusions. Hehas in this connection referred to the details of the claims given in Annexurea-l filed by the petitioner before the Arbitrator. He has also in this connection referred to Ex. C-17, which shows that there were delays on the part ofthe respondent which compelled the Contractor to maintain an establishment and thus bad to incur expenses thereon. Thus the Arbitrator, I feel,was justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 74,400. 00 on this score to the petitioner. Moreover, clauses 36 and 36-A are quite clear on the above point. The Contractor/petitioner was under obligation to engage and employ thetechnical staff otherwise he was liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 2000. 00. Inview of the above, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to maintainan establishment during the above said period of delay which was on accountof the lapses on the part of the respondent. ( 7 ) IT is a well established principle of law that the Arbitrator is afinal Judge of the facts and the evidence. This Court does not sit in judgmentover the orders and the judgment given by the Arbitrator. The Courtcan interfere with the Award only in those discerning few cases where thereis an error apparent on the record, and the Arbitrator has misconductedhimself and the proceedings. Learned Counsel for the respondent has failedto show me any such thing in the present case. The above view was givenvent to by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as reported in M/s. Hindustan Tea Co. v. M/s. K. Shashikant and Co. and Another. A. I. R. 1987s. C. 81 : "under the law. Learned Counsel for the respondent has failedto show me any such thing in the present case. The above view was givenvent to by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as reported in M/s. Hindustan Tea Co. v. M/s. K. Shashikant and Co. and Another. A. I. R. 1987s. C. 81 : "under the law. the Arbitrator is made the final arbiter of thedispute between the parties. The award is not open to challenge en theground that the. Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed toappreciate facts" It is abundantly clear from the above that the awardcan not be challenged on the ground that the Arbitrator has arrived at awrong conclusion or has failed to properly appreciate the facts and theevidence. Learned Counsel for the respondents in fact wants this Court todo so which T am sorry is not open to this Court simply because this Courtdoes not sit in judgment over the findings given by the Arbitrator. ( 8 ) NO other point was raised before this Court. The objections, in view of the above, are rejected. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances stated above, the Award dated 10/12/1990 is hereby made a rule of the Court. Let a decree be passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondents in terms of the Award Ex. YZ. The Award Ex. YZ shall form part of the decree. The petitionershall be entitled to future interest at the rate of 14% per annum till realisation of the decretal amount. ( 10 ) SUIT stands disposed of. Petition dismissed.