JUDGMENT D.K. Deshmukh, J. - By this petition, the petitioner challenges the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator. The first submission that is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the premises from which the business of the firm was being carried on has been wrongly held to be an asset of the firm. Perusal of the award however, shows that the Arbitrator has given detailed reasons for recording a finding that the premises from where the business of the firm was conducted is an asset of the firm. The Arbitrator has drawn certain inferences from the conduct of the petitioner before the Arbitrator. 2. It was next submitted that the Arbitrator has ignored the liability of the bank against the firm. Relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Chandrabhan Rupchand Dakhale v. Birdichand Lalchand Navlakha and others (1983 Mah. LJ 1043), it was submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 48 of the Partnership Act, the liability of the firm has to be taken into consideration. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, it is clear that so far as the liability of the bank is concerned, it has been paid out. If according to the respondent, from the accounts of the firm in that suit, the petitioner has substituted himself as the plaintiff and therefore in view of the provisions of Section 48, as that liability cannot be said to be liability to a third party, the Arbitrator has rightly dealt with that aspect of the matter. It is further to be seen that the respondent is defendant in the suit which is filed by the petitioner for recovery of the amount and if the respondent is found to be liable, a decree can be obtained in that suit by the plaintiff. The learned counsel then argued that the claims which have been found against the petitioner by the Arbitrator do not tally with the balance sheet. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with an award is extremely limited. The learned counsel then argued that the claims which have been found against the petitioner by the Arbitrator do not tally with the balance sheet. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with an award is extremely limited. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Nath International Construction (P) Ltd. ( 1996(1) SCC 18 ), has categorically laid it down that the Court can interfere with an award on the ground set out in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to examine the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Arbitrator. In my opinion, considering the limited jurisdiction of this Court, the award cannot be interfered with. Petition is therefore rejected. 2A. As a result of the rejection of this petition, in view of the provisions of Rule 77(5) of the High Court (Original Side) Rules, a decree in terms of the award has to be passed. Therefore, it is directed that the decree in terms of the award by passed. On a request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, execution of that decree shall remain stayed for a period of eight weeks. The order granting stay of execution of the decree passed pursuant to the award shall not in any way affect operation of any orders that might be presently in field. The interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is allowed on the awarded amount from the date of decree till the date of realization, Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the associate as true copy. Certified copy expedited. Petition rejected.