Sat Pal ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by M/s. Anant Rajagencies Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) against thedelhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the D. D. A.) undersections 14 and 17of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to asthe Act ). In this Petition it has been prayed that defendant No. 2 who wasthe arbitrator in this case be directed to file the original award alongwith thearbitration proceedings and thereafter notice of filing of the award be issuedto the parties. After the receipt of the award and the proceedings noticeof filing of award was issued to the parties. Thereafter D. D. A. filed theobjection petition bearing IA No. 172/89 in respect of claims No. 1,2,3,6,7,8and 10 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act. The objections have beencontroverted by the contractor in their reply to the said IA. The followingissues were framed :- (1) Whether the award is liable to the set aside for the objections filedby the respondent-DDA ? (2) Relief. ( 2 ) AS directed by the Court, both the parties have filed affidavit insupport and in opposition to the objections against the award. ( 3 ) MR. Manoj Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of thed. D. A. submitted that the reasons given by the learned Arbitrator withregard to claims No. 1 and 2 were not valid. I, however, do not find anysubstance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel with regardto the aforesaid claims. The reasons given by the learned Arbitrator inawarding these claims are that the parties were at ad-idem and the understanding between them was that the entire quantity of materials consumedin the work were to be supplied by the D. D. A. The claimants had clainpedthe amount only in respect of the material which was not supplied by thed. D. A. and they had to purchase the same from the open market andamounts claimed represents the costs of the material purchased from theopen market which has been duly certified by the auditors. The reasonsappeared to be quite valid and as such the award cannot be set-aside inrespect of the aforesaid claims. D. A. and they had to purchase the same from the open market andamounts claimed represents the costs of the material purchased from theopen market which has been duly certified by the auditors. The reasonsappeared to be quite valid and as such the award cannot be set-aside inrespect of the aforesaid claims. Here I may refer to a judgement of thesupreme Court reported in the case of U. P. Hotels v. U. P. State Electricityboard, AIR 1989 SC 268 , wherein it was held, even assuming that there wasan error of construction of the agreement or even that there was an error oflaw in arriving at a conclusion, such an error is not an error which is amenable to correction even in a reasoned award under the law. ( 4 ) AS regards claim No. 3, the arbitrator has awarded a sum ofrs. l,10,000. 00 on account of damages/compensation at market rates for thework executed beyond the stipulated date. While awarding this amount,the learned Arbitrator has held that the proforma of extension filed by thed. D. A. shows that the major delay on account of laying of conduits pipeswas by the electric contractor and because of non laying of cables by DESU. He has further held that the delay is attributable to the D. D. A. since thelaying of conduits and DESU cables were not the responsibility of theclaimants. The reasons given by the arbitrator cannot be said to be perverse,as such I do not find any merit in the objection raised by the D. D. A. in respect of claim No. 3. ( 5 ) AS regards the claim No. 6, the learned Arbitrator awarded a sumof Rs. 1,93,750. 40 in favour of the contractor. During the course of arguments it was however, admitted by the learned Counsel for the contractorthat against the awarded amount in respect of claim No. 6, a sum of Rs. 1,43,903. 35 has already been paid to the contractor by the D. D. A. in Sep. 1989. Learned Counsel for the D. D. A. submitted that the reasons givenby the arbitrator while awarding the amount in respect of this claimare not good ones. The learned Counsel contended that some of the extraand substituted items were pending approval of the competent authorityand as such the contractor could not be paid any amount for this extra andsubstituted items. 1989. Learned Counsel for the D. D. A. submitted that the reasons givenby the arbitrator while awarding the amount in respect of this claimare not good ones. The learned Counsel contended that some of the extraand substituted items were pending approval of the competent authorityand as such the contractor could not be paid any amount for this extra andsubstituted items. From the award, I find that the learned Arbitrator hasgiven valid reasons for awarding the amount in respect of this claim. In theaward it has been stated that the D. D. A. inspite of the opportunity did notplace on record the final bill indicating their final sanction of the extra andsubstituted item and in the circumstances it was just and fair to proceed onthe basis of the recommended rate and quantities as recorded in the measurment book No. 768 recommended for sanction by Engineer Incharge. Sincethe awarded amount is based on the recommendations made by theengineer Incharge, I do not find any error in the reasons given by thearbitrator. Accordingly, the objections in respect of claim No. 6 are alsorejected. ( 6 ) AS regards the claim No. 7 the learned Counsel for the D. D. A. could not point out any discrepancy in the reasons given by the Arbitratorwhile awarding this amount. ( 7 ) WITH regard to claim No. 8, the learned arbitrator awarded a sumof Rs. 1,40,852. 40 p against claim of Rs. 3. 00 lacs of the contractor onaccount of increase in quantity and the deviation limit payable under Clause12 (A) of the contract. Learned Counsel for the D. D. A. submitted that thefinding of the arbitrator while awarding this amount was contrary to clause12 of the contract. Learned Counsel contended that the restrictions mentioned in Clause 12 (vi) have not been met and as such claim for individualitems could not be allowed under clause 12 (A ). From the award I find thatthe learned Arbitrator while awarding the amount in respect of this claim,has held that the respondent-D. D. A. bad admitted that an increase of 10%over the agreement rate was reasonable and justified against 25% beingclaimed. It was in these circumstances that the arbitrator awarded to thecontractor a sum of Rs. 1,40852. 40. In view of the aforesaid reasons givenby the Arbitrator, I do not find any merit in the objections raised by thed. D. A. in respect to this claim. It was in these circumstances that the arbitrator awarded to thecontractor a sum of Rs. 1,40852. 40. In view of the aforesaid reasons givenby the Arbitrator, I do not find any merit in the objections raised by thed. D. A. in respect to this claim. ( 8 ) AGAINST claim No. 10, the learned Arbitrator has awarded to thecontractor interest @ 15% p. a. with quarterly rests on the amounts awardedfrom the date of reference till the date of decree or payments whichever isearlier. I do not find any infirmity in respect of this claim as the rate ofinterest which is 15% p. a. appears to be quite reasonable except that thereis no justification for interest with quarterly rests. Accordingly, I hold thatthe contractor will be entitled to the interest @ 15% p. a. but not with quarterly rests, till the date of decree. The view I have taken is supported by myown judgment reported in the case of M/s. J. N. Constructions v. N. D. M. C. ,1993 III AD (Delhi) 1121. ( 9 ) IN view of above discussion, the objections contained in IA 172/89are dismissed. Objections against the award having been dismissed, theaward dated 29/04/1988 as modified in respect of claim No. 10 is maderole of the Court. Let a decree be drawn in terms of the award as modified. The award will form a part of the decree. I further direct that in case thedecretal amount is not paid to the contractor within two months from thedate of decree, the contractor will be entitled to the interest @ 15% p. a. fromthe date of decree till realisation. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.