Mohd. Shanum ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Sections 14 and. 17 of the Arbitration Act ( registered as Suit No. 2086/90) for issue of a direction to respondentno. 3. i. e. Shri 0m Prakash, Arbitrator to file the award dated 26/04/1990 and tomake the same a rule of the Court. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under: thatrespondent No. 1 herein awarded a contract with regard to construction of Storewith Railways siding facilities at G. T. K-Roadsh: Construction of room forelectrical JE and Security Guard room vide agreement No. 6/ee/sdi/dda /85-86on behalf of respondent No. 2. Certain disputes and differences arose in betweenthe parties with regard to the execution of the said contract and the same werereferred to the sole arbitration of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 enteredthe reference and published his award on 26/04/1990. ( 3 ) THE said award was filed before this Court in Suit No-356/91. Notices wereissued to both the parties to prefer objections, if any, against the said award. ( 4 ) THE petitioner herein did. not choose to file any objections against theimpugned award. However, the respondent preferred the objections i. e. I. A. No. 2574/91. ( 5 ) THE respondent through the said objections have challenged the find ings ofthe Arbitrator with regard to the recovery of steel valued at Rs. 21,703. 80 under thehead "recovery of steel amounting to Rs. 21,730. 80 at penal rate ". They have alsochallenged the finding of the Arbitrator with regard to claim No. 3 whereby thelearned Arbitrator allowed a sum of Rs. 7,000. 00 to the petitioner. ( 6 ) IT has been urged for and on behalf of the respondent that the petitionerwas issued steel for the execution of the work allotted to him to the tune of 3. 630 MTout of which the respondent recovered steel weighing 1. 800 MT leaving behind1. 830 MT which was not accounted for by the petitioner. According to the learnedcounsel, it was neither accounted for nor was it returned to the respondent. Thus,the respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 21,703. 80 as the value and price of the said steelat double the rate. The Arbitrator for the best reasons known to him allowed a claimof Rs. 3,913. 80 only out of the said amount as the price of the steel weighing. 660 MT. Thus,the respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 21,703. 80 as the value and price of the said steelat double the rate. The Arbitrator for the best reasons known to him allowed a claimof Rs. 3,913. 80 only out of the said amount as the price of the steel weighing. 660 MT. ( 7 ) IT has thus been contended that the learned arbitrator went wrong inawarding only such a paltry amount against a huge sum of Rs. 21,703. 80. Thelearned Counsel in support of his argument has sought help from Clause 42 of theagreement. ( 8 ) SINCE we are concerned with the construction of Clause 42 of the agreement,the provisions of the said clause can be adverted to with profit before proceedingany further in the matter. It is in the following words:- (I) The contractor shall see that only the required quantities of materialsare got issued. Any such material remaining un-used and in perfectlygood condition at the time of completion or determination of thecontract shall be returned to the Engineer-in-Charge at a place wheredirected by him, by a notice in writing under his hand, if he shall sorequire. Credit for such materials will be given at the prevailingmarket rate not exceeding the amount charged from him excludingthe element of storage charges levied at the time of issue of materialsto him. . . . " (ii) ". . . . . . . . The difference in quantity of cement actually issued to the contractor and the theoretical quantity including authorised variations, ifnot returned by the contractor, shall be recovered at twice the issuerate without prejudice to the provision of the relevant conditionsregarding return of materials governing the contract. . . . . . ". ( 9 ) THE provisions of Clause 42 (ii) are also applicable to the non return of thesteel as per Clause 42 (iii ). Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended onthe basis of the above that since the petitioner failed to account for the steelweighing 1. 830 MT, hence the respondent was entitled to recover the price of thesame at double the rate. ( 10 ) THE Arbitrator while dis-allowing the claim of the respondent has opinedthat the steel weighing 1. 170 MT was lying at the site and the same was in thecustody and possession of the respondent. 830 MT, hence the respondent was entitled to recover the price of thesame at double the rate. ( 10 ) THE Arbitrator while dis-allowing the claim of the respondent has opinedthat the steel weighing 1. 170 MT was lying at the site and the same was in thecustody and possession of the respondent. Hence no lapse can be attributed to thepetitioner on the said score and the petitioner is not under any obligation to accountfor the same. According to the learned Arbitrator, the petitioner was issued steelweighing 3. 630mt. The steel which was found lying at the site was 1. 170 MT thusleaving 2. 460 MT. The steel which was recovered out of the same in the firstrunning account bill was to the tune of 1. 800 MT. Thus, the learned arbitratorallowed for the balance of the steel i. e. . 660 MT at the rate of Rs. 5930. 00 per MT i. e. to the tune of Rs. 3,913. 80. The learned Arbitrator while dis-allowing the claimof the respondent to make penal recoveries on the said score has opined that thepenal recovery can be effected only in those discerning few cases where therespondent are in a position to make out a case that they have suffered any loss onaccount of the non return of the excess materials issued to the petitioner. ( 11 ) THE above view also finds support from the observations of a learnedsingle Judge of this Court in the case reported as Salwan Construction Co. v. U. O. I. and Ors. , (41 (1990) Delhi Law Times 474 ). ". . . that the Arbitrator has rightly held thatin the absence of loss, having been suffered, or the proof of actual loss, if suffered,respondent No. 1, was not entitled, having already recovered the issue rate, torecover double the issue rate of cement consumed by the Claimants in excess of the theoretical calculations. I do not find any legal mis-conduct on the part of thearbitrator, in awarding the refund of the aforesaid amount to the claimant". ( 12 ) THIS brings me to the claim No. 3. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 9000. 00on account of the material which was left at the site by the petitioner whichhe was not allowed to remove. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 9000. 00 on thesaid score. ( 12 ) THIS brings me to the claim No. 3. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 9000. 00on account of the material which was left at the site by the petitioner whichhe was not allowed to remove. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 9000. 00 on thesaid score. The Arbitrator, however, allowed the claim of the petitioner to theextent of Rs. 7000. 00 only. Learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that if. the petitioner did not remove the said material lying at the site he can blame nonebut himself for the same. The respondent neither put any hindrance or obstacle inhis way for the removal of the same. In fact, they rendered him all possibleassistance to remove the same. The petitioner, however, for the best reasons known. to him, did not remove the same, hence the Arbitrator was not justified in ,sanctioning a claim of Rs. 7000. 00 on the said score. Learned Counsel for thepetitioner, on the other hand, has contended that the petitioner made everypossible effort to remove the said material but he was not allowed to do so. According to the learned Counsel, the said material was lying in the security areaand the petitioner was not, as such, permitted to visit the said area. ( 13 ) I have very carefully examined and scrutinised the finding of the learnedarbitrator on the said point. The learned Arbitrator has observed that thepetitioner could not remove the said material on account of the fact that the samewas lying in the security area. It is a well-established principle of law that this Courtdoes not sit in judgment over the findings given by the Arbitrator. This Court canneither go into the reasonableness of the findings nor sufficiency of the findings notthe validity thereof. The Court while examining the findings of the learnedarbitrator can interfere with the same only in those few cases where the Arbitrator has mis-conducted himself and the proceedings. The respondent in the instantcase has miserably failed to show to this Court any misconduct on the part of thearbitrator. In view of the above, I do not see any justification to interfere with thefindings of the learned Arbitrator on the above points. ( 14 ) NO other point was raised before this Court. ( 15 ) IN the circumstances stated above, the objections i. e. I. A. No. 2574/91 arehereby dismissed. The award marked Ex. In view of the above, I do not see any justification to interfere with thefindings of the learned Arbitrator on the above points. ( 14 ) NO other point was raised before this Court. ( 15 ) IN the circumstances stated above, the objections i. e. I. A. No. 2574/91 arehereby dismissed. The award marked Ex. XZ is hereby made a rule of the Court. Let a decree be passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondent in termsof the said award. The award Ex. XZ shall form a part of the decree.