JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1988 is directed against the interim award dated May 29, 1997 passed by Mr. Justice P.S. Sahay an ex-Judge of this Court. The sole respondent M/s Ganesh Foundry Castings Limited filed a writ petition CWJC No. 6176 of 1995 in this Court for quashing certain electric bills This Court by order dated January 22.1996 directed the respondent to file representation before Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board who was to take decision on the basis of opinion of Member (Technical),Bihar State Electricity Board and Chief Engineer-cum-Senior Electrical Inspector, Government of Bihar. The respondent filed representation. The two members, namely member (technical) of the Board and Chief Engineer-cum-Sr. Electrical Inspector Govt., of Bihar submitted c6nfllicting opinion. The Chairman ultimately passed an order on May 15, 1996. The Respondent challenged the correctness of the decision by another writ petition CWJC No. 5812 of 1996. That writ petition was disposed of by a consent order on April, 24. 1997. The parties agreed that the dispute which was subject matter of the writ petition be referred to for arbitration of Mr. Justice P S Sahay, a retired Judge of this Court. Since the resolution of the dispute required the assistance of experts, the parties also agreed that Mr. Justice P.S. Sahay would be assisted by Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Head of the Department of the Electrical Engineer, MIT, Muzaffarpur and Mr. Bindheshwari Prasad Singh, Member (Distribution), (Retd) being nominees of the respondent and the appellant Board. respectively. It was further agreed that the parties shall abide by the arbitration award including an interim award as may be made by the Arbitrator. From the recored of CWJC No. 6138 of 1997 which was heard along with this appeal it appears that the respondent made a prayer to make interim award in view of the fact that the factory was closed from August, 4. 1995 and facing acute financial crises on account of heavy loans from different Financial Institutions, employees, salary etc. The parties submitted their terms and offer. The offer made by the respondent was not accepted by the Board. In the circumstances, on May, 29.1997 the Arbitrator gave his impugned award directing that respondent shall pay sum of Rs.1307 lakhs towards dues upto August 3. 1995, as per the break-up mentioned in the award, and deposite a sum of Rs. The parties submitted their terms and offer. The offer made by the respondent was not accepted by the Board. In the circumstances, on May, 29.1997 the Arbitrator gave his impugned award directing that respondent shall pay sum of Rs.1307 lakhs towards dues upto August 3. 1995, as per the break-up mentioned in the award, and deposite a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as security to be adjusted after the final award. The arbitrator directed that alter the aforesaid amounts are paid by the respondent supply of electric energy to the tune of 1500 KVA as per the old agreement shall be resumed to it which shall continue till final award is made. The agreement for additional load of 1000 KVA was to remain in abeyance. The Arbitrator further directed that the transformers up to total capacity of 2250 KVA shall be the rest will be removed by the respondent from the premises before the electric connection is restored. The capacity of the transformer so retained in the permises will be Jointly verified by the Testing Wing of the Board and the representative of the MIT, Muzalfarpur. The electric connection was to be restored only after fulfillment of these conditions. The Arbitrator also directed the company shall pay the current bills as per demand made by the Board from time to time. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned award is not signed by the other two members the fore has no legal value, that the award was made in the midst of hearing without notice and that the amount which the respondent has been directed to pay is admitted amount, the disputed amount has not been taken into consideration. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from the order dated April 24, 1997 in CWJC No. 5812 of 1996 it is dear that the dispute was referred to for arbitration by the sole Arbitrator, the two nominees of the parties were/are only supposed to assist him. He pointed out that the impugned interim award has been made with concurrence of the said two nominess. Me. He pointed out that the impugned interim award has been made with concurrence of the said two nominess. Me. Giri stated that the appellant had filed a petition seeking modification of the award (marked Annexure 13 to the writ petition in CWJC No. 6138 of 1997), from which it would appear that all that [he appellant wanted was enhancement of the quantum, no infirmity as such was pointed out in the award Mr. Giri also took the stand that since the dispute had been referred to the arbitration with the consent of the parties; this Court should hot entertain the appeal as DO appeal lies against consent order. In this connection he referred to a decision in the case of K. C. Dora Vs. G. Annamanaidu AIR 1974 SC 1069 . Mr. Giri contended that the action of the appellant. Board as a matter of fact amounts to contempt for which they deserve to be suitably punished. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties. The relevant part of the order dated April 24, 1997 which, as stated above was passed with consent of the parties, runs as follows;- "As agreed to between the parties, it will be open to the Arbitrator to make interim award and give necessary directions in the matter of resumption of the electric supply on such terms as may be considered just and proper which, too shall be binding on the parties." Having once agreed to arbitration and to abide by the award of the Arbitrator including an interim award that may be made by him, it is un-understandable how the appellants can resile from the consent and refuse to a bide by the award merely because they are not satisfied with the amount the respondent has been asked to pay. The plea that the interim award was suddently made in the midst of hearing without notice shutting the door and denying entry as alleged is completely baseless. It would not be out of place to state here that no statement whatsoever has been made in the memorandum of appeal to even remotely suggest that the Arbitrator made the interim award without hearing. The submission that two nominees should also have signed the interim award is also completely misconceived, for they were/are only supposed to aid and advise the Arbitrator, they are not members of any joint arbitration. The submission that two nominees should also have signed the interim award is also completely misconceived, for they were/are only supposed to aid and advise the Arbitrator, they are not members of any joint arbitration. Besides, as stated above, they had also concurred in the interim award. The submission that the Arbitrator has not taken in to consideration the disputed amount is also without any substance. The impugned award is merely an interim award, with consent of the parties, this Court bad authorised the Arbitrator to make interim award and parties had agreed to abide by the same. As stated above, the factory is lying close since August 4.1995. Far from generating income, it is incurring recurring loss under different heads. Unless the production is resumed and the respondent starts earning income, it may not be in a position to make payment of higher amount then directed by the Arbitrator at this stage. In any view it is not possible for this Court to sit in appeal over the judgment of the Arbitrator and enhance the amount. In the circumstances of the case, this appeal appears to be only a device to delay the resumption of the electric supply. No ground has been made out for interference with the impugned interim award. This misc, appeal is devoid of substance and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.