C. M. Nayar, J. (Oral) ( 1 ) THE present petition has been filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing of the Award dated 3rd May, 1991 in Court and for making the same rule of the Court. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was awarded the contract under the name and style of "construction of A. G. V. C. 1982. SH: construction of parking and widening of existing roads, Phase II. " Disputes and differences arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Banarsi Dass by the Engineer Member of the respondent Authority who had resigned and the matter was adjudicated by Shri R. C. Malhotra. ( 3 ) THE claims and counter claims may be reproduced as below:- "additional CLAIM NO. 1: Claimants claim Rs. 40,000. 00 towards refund of earnest money/security deposit. "additional CLAIM NO. 2: Claimants submit that rescission should be set aside. ADDITIONAL CLAIM NO. 3: Claimants claim Rs. 12,000. 00 on a/c of cost of procurement of 800 mm dia RCC pipe NP2, which could not be incorporated before the contract was rescinded and had not been allowed to be removed. ADDITIONAL CLAIM NO. 4: Claimants state that action taken under clause 2 be set aside. COUNTER CLAIM NO. 1: Respondents claim Rs. 1276. 80 towards panel rate recovery for cement 2. 28 M. T. COUNTER CLAIM NO. 2: Respondents claim Rs. 32,130. 00 towards panel rate recovery for bitumen 6. 30 M. T. COUNTER CLAIM NO. 3: Respondents claim Rs. 450. 00 because of non submission of labour report. COUNTER CLAIM NO. 4: Respondents claim Rs. 175. 00 because of non submission of receipt of empty cement bags. COUNTER CLAIM NO. 5: Respondents claim Rs. 1,50,000. 00 for the quantity of material found short during technical examination of the work. COUNTER CLAIM NO. 6: Respondents claim Rs. 1,33,939. 00 towards balance work got executed at the risk and cost of the claimant/contractor by other agency. COUNTER CLAIM NO. 7: Respondents claim Rs. 20,628. 00 towards deduction in rates on a/c of oversize stone aggregate. " ( 4 ) THE only amount which has been awarded in favour of the petitioner-claimant is the refund of earnest money/ security deposit which was alleged to be wrongly withheld by the respondent Authority. COUNTER CLAIM NO. 7: Respondents claim Rs. 20,628. 00 towards deduction in rates on a/c of oversize stone aggregate. " ( 4 ) THE only amount which has been awarded in favour of the petitioner-claimant is the refund of earnest money/ security deposit which was alleged to be wrongly withheld by the respondent Authority. The Counter Claim No. 4 of the respondent was allowed and an Award was made in the sum of Rs. 175. 00. The total Award in favour of the petitioner claimant is, therefore, for the amount of Rs. 39,825. 00. The learned arbitrator has given reasons to arrive at conclusions which are based on appreciation of evidence as well as the documents which have been placed on record. The law is well settled that it will not be open for this Court to reappraise the same and arrive at conclusions contrary to the conclusions which have been rendered by the learned arbitrator. The learned counsel for the respondent Authority has not been able to assail the findings of the learned arbitrator and no error of law nor acts of misconduct have been pointed out at the time of hearing. The objections of the respondent Authority as a consequence are dismissed. The Award dated 3rd May, 1991 is made rule of the Court and decree in terms thereof is passed. The petitioner claimant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of decree till realisation. There will be no order as to costs.