C. M. Nayar, J. (Oral) ( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of the objections filed by the respondent-Union of India under Sections 16,30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act impugning the Award dated July 15, 1994 to the extent it allowed claims of the petitioner and rejected counter claims of the respondent. ( 2 ) THE claimant had entered into a running contract with the respondent for supply of Canvas Shoes vide AT No. RGC/wl-3/shoes Canvas/0598/82-83/63/ii/870/paod dated 6. 7. 1982, but the claimant failed to complete the supply and the contract was rescinded by the respondent for the balance quantity at the claimant s risk and cost. The petitioner claimant as a consequence filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in this Court as a result of which claims as detailed in the Annexure attached to the statement of claims were ordered to be REFERRED TO to arbitration and the Director General Supplies and Disposals appointed Mrs. R. Lakhmanan as arbitrator but she having been transferred resigned from the case and Dr. B. N. Mani, Additional Legal Advisor was appointed in her place. The parties filed their statement of claims, counter claims, documents as well as affidavits in support of their contentions. Dr. B. N. Mani retired on reaching the age of superannuation and resigned as arbitrator from the case and the matter was not concluded. Thereafter the case was entrusted to the present arbitrator as appointed by this Court on January 16, 1991 in OMP No. 34/90. The petitioner claimant filed written submissions with regard to its claims and the Union of India filed counter claims on 6th April, 1992 to which replies were filed. ( 3 ) THE petitioner raised the following claims before the learned arbitration for adjudication: "claim No. 1 Value of 38,668 pairs @ Rs. 15. 31 per pair duly inspected for supply (At the time of filing of Section 20 petition, there were 61558 pairs ut of which 22890 pairs were sold on 11th April 1986 by way of distress sale ). Rs. 5,92,008. 00 CLAIM No. 2 Loss incurred on the distress sale of 22890 Rs. 1,04,747. 00 pairs. CLAIM No. 3 Interest @18% per annum on Rs. 9,42,453. 00 with effect from 22nd September, 1983, date of offer to 17th April, 1986, the date when distress sale was made Rs. 4,38,240. 00 i. e. interest in 31 months. Rs. 5,92,008. 00 CLAIM No. 2 Loss incurred on the distress sale of 22890 Rs. 1,04,747. 00 pairs. CLAIM No. 3 Interest @18% per annum on Rs. 9,42,453. 00 with effect from 22nd September, 1983, date of offer to 17th April, 1986, the date when distress sale was made Rs. 4,38,240. 00 i. e. interest in 31 months. CLAIM No. 4 Interest @ 18% per annum on: I) Rs. 46,812. 00 of bill No. DG747 dated 19th March, 1983 from 19th March, 1983, date of bill till 12th April, 1985, when the payment was credited to our account i. e. 25th months. Rs. 17,554 II)RS. 45,189. 00 of bill No. DG-820 dated 26. 3. 84, from 26th March, 1984 date of bill till 12th April 1985, when the payment was credited to Rs. 26,365. 00 our account i. e. for 12 months. Rs. 8,811. 00 CLAIM No. 5 Balance 2% payment of the quantity already supplied. Rs. 58,017. 00 CLAIM No. 6 Interest @ 18% per annum on Rs. 58,017. 00 from 15th July, 1984, the expiry of delivery date till 17th June, 1986, the date of filing of the petition. Rs. 2,175. 00 CLAIM No. 7 Loss of profit @10% on the balance quantity of 157674 pairs @ Rs. 15. 31 per pair. Rs. 2,41,398. 00 CLAIM No. 8 Interest @18% per annum on Rs. 241399. 00 from 12th September, 1984 the date of cancellation of the order to 15th June, 1986 the date of filing of petition. Rs. 2,293. 00 CLAIM No. 9 Proportionate loss incurred by way of loss of wages and overheads etc: I) Loss of wages 14740. 00 II) Loss of overheads @2% on the value of remained quantity 2413989 48280. 00 III) Loss of maintenance of Pandm. 2500. 00 CLAIM No. 10 Rs. 65,520. 00 A)DIFFERENCE of interest @11% per annum (payable 18% less 7% recoverable from the bank on Rs. 25,000 deposited for furnishing the bank guarantee for Rs. 75,000. 00 , from 8th September, 1982, the date when Rs. 25,000. 00 was deposited upto the date of filing of petition under Section 20 of Arbitration Act. Rs. 5,729. 00 B) Bank charges on above bank guarantee charged by bank on 9th September, 1992. Rs. 844. 00 C) Interest on Rs. 844. 75,000. 00 , from 8th September, 1982, the date when Rs. 25,000. 00 was deposited upto the date of filing of petition under Section 20 of Arbitration Act. Rs. 5,729. 00 B) Bank charges on above bank guarantee charged by bank on 9th September, 1992. Rs. 844. 00 C) Interest on Rs. 844. 00 @18 per cent per annum from 9th September, 1982 to 30th September, 1984, the date of filing of petition under Section 20 of Arbitration Act. Rs. 310. 00 D)I) Loss of business because of blocking of the capital Rs. 25,000. 00 (deposited with bank @17% (24% being the market rate of interest less 7% recoverable from bank) from 8th September, 1982 to 30th September, 1984, the date of filing the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Rs. 8677. 00 II) Loss of business because of blocking of capital Rs. 884. 00 as bank charges @24% being the market value of interest from 9th September, 1982 to 30th September, 1984 the date of filing of the petition under Section 20 of Arbitration Act. 413 Rs. 9090 15,973. 00 CLAIM No. 11 That future interest at commercial rate i. e. 24% per annum which is also the prevalent rate according to market custom and practice with effect from the dates, as mentioned hereinabove, till the award is made and future interest at the said rate be also awarded. ( 4 ) THE learned arbitrator examined the pleadings on appreciation of evidence and rejected all the claims except claim No. 5 which was granted to the extent of Rs. 44,502. 00 and consequent interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from October 1,1984 till the date of the Award as REFERRED TO to in claim No. 6. The learned counsel for Union of India has not been able to point out any error of law and seriously assail the findings in respect of the claims as REFERRED TO to above and the same are, accordingly, upheld. ( 5 ) THE following counter claims were made by the respondent Union of India: COUNTER Claim No. 1 For Rs. 1,36,710. 86 on account of risk purchase loss for the purchase of 91,925 pairs from M/s Ashraf Exports at Rs. 16. 74 per pair against the claimant s rate of Rs. 15. 31 per pair plus sales tax at 4%. 1,36,710. 86 on account of risk purchase loss for the purchase of 91,925 pairs from M/s Ashraf Exports at Rs. 16. 74 per pair against the claimant s rate of Rs. 15. 31 per pair plus sales tax at 4%. COUNTER Claim No. 2 General Damages for Rs. 1,,236. 40 for the quantity of 65,749 pairs. COUNTER Claim No. 3 Interest at 18% per annum from the date of demand till realisation. COUNTER claim No. 4 Cost of arbitration proceedings. ( 6 ) THE learned arbitrator clearly held that he examined the claimant s contentions and respondent s reply and found that some of the deviations quoted by the claimant were material and in view of the settled position of law he accepted claimant s objections and held that the risk purchase was not legally valid and, therefore, rejected counter claim No. 1 of the respondent. With regard to the claim for general damages under counter claim No. 2, the learned arbitrator held on appreciation of pleadings, evidence and documents on record and arguments advanced by both the parties that the market rate around the date of breach on which the claim was based had not been proved according to law and the claim was, therefore, not tenable. Reference has been made to the judgment of this Court in St. Gites Company v. Union of India 59 (1995) Delhi Law Times 735 in which S. K. Mahajan,j. in paragraph 7 has held as follows: " The submission made by the respondent s/objector s counsel is that as the Arbitrator has held that the Government was entitled to risk purchase loss, he ought to have allowed the claim of the Government. I am afraid, I cannot agree with this contention of the Government s counsel. On the basis of material before him, the Arbitrator though has held that the Government was entitled to risk purchase, however, at the same time he has held that there were variations between the contract with the petitioner herein and the contracts which have been by way of risk purchase, as such he did not allow the difference between the two contracts to be paid to the Government by way of its claim. He has further held that the Government had failed to substantiate its claim of loss and for that reason as well the Government was not entitled to claim the alleged difference. He has further held that the Government had failed to substantiate its claim of loss and for that reason as well the Government was not entitled to claim the alleged difference. The Arbitrator having come to a finding on the basis of the material before him, it may not be possible for the Court to upset the same. The Court is not to sit as a Court of appeal over the decision of the Arbitrator nor it is to assess the quality or quantity of evidence before the Arbitrator to find out as to whether the Arbitrator s decision is correct. Even an erroneous decision given by the Arbitrator may not be set aside in case there was some material before the Arbitrator to come to that finding. On the same evidence which was before the Arbitrator, the Court may come to a different conclusion, but that by itself may not be a ground to set aside the award of the Arbitrator. " ( 7 ) THE learned Arbitrator elaborately examined the merits of each claim and counter claims and even asked the parties to make the written submissions which form part of the record. The oral as well as documentary evidence was placed on record and it will not be open for this Court to reappraise the same and arrive at contrary conclusions by re-examining the whole matter. The objections filed by the Union of India are without force and are dismissed accordingly. The Award dated 15th July, 1994 is made Rule of the Court and decree in terms thereof is passed. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of institution of suit till realisation. There will be no order as to costs.