VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. ( 1 ) THESE Objections have been filed on behalf of Delhi Development Authorityagainst the Award dated 5. 8. 1994. It is yet another instance of the DDA filingobjections against Awards in a mechanical manner. The first ground is that thearbitrator was to give a valid reasoned award. Having perused the impugenedaward I find that the Arbitrator has given reasons and in such minute details as isuncommon in Arbitrations. There is, therefore, no justification for this Objection beingraised at all. It shows a total non-application of mind. As regards the other claims, theperspicuous decision of his Lordship B. N. Kirpal, J. in Himachal Pradesh Stateelectricity Board Vs. R. J. Shah and Company 1999 (2) Arb. LR 316 is a completeanswer. ( 2 ) THE challenge in this Objections is to the Award in Claims 1,2. 3. 7,10 and 11the following Table will illustrate the details;s. No. Amount Claimed Award Towards1. Rs. 2855. 00 Rs. 2445. 00 0. 5% rebate2. Rs. 35,000. 00 Rs. 560. 00 Work done but not paid. 3. Rs. 12,578. 00 Rs. 11880. 00 Escalation in rate. 7. Rs. 40,000. 00 Rs. 7120. 00 Prolongation ofcontract. 10. Interest @ 18% 12%p. A. Interest. 11. Rs. 11,000. 00 Rs. 5000. 00 Costs. ( 3 ) IF the Objections are to be sustained and the Award is to be set aside in respectof Claims 1, 2, 3 and 7, the Court would necessarily have to go into the facts of thedisputes which were before the Arbitrator. No authority need be cited for the propositionthat the Court does not sit in appeal over the Award. The Arbitrator is the master ofthe facts. Even errors committed in his findings of fact are not to be lightly traversed orreversed by the Court. In respect of these Claims, I have perused the reasons onwhich the Award is found and find that they are lucid. No interference is called for bythe Court. ( 4 ) IN respect of Claim No. 10 there is a challenge to the Arbitrator having grantedinterest. This is how the Supreme court deal with a similar objection raised in thehimachal Pradesh State Electricity Board s case (supra) as under: 786"it was then submitted by Sh. Maninder Singh that the arbitrators hadawarded a sum of Rs. 3,99,800 as interest with effect from 22/12/1976 till the date of payment as per the award. This is how the Supreme court deal with a similar objection raised in thehimachal Pradesh State Electricity Board s case (supra) as under: 786"it was then submitted by Sh. Maninder Singh that the arbitrators hadawarded a sum of Rs. 3,99,800 as interest with effect from 22/12/1976 till the date of payment as per the award. This interest, he submittedc,ou!d not be awarded. In view of th decision of this Court in Secretary,irrigation Department. Government of Orissa and others Vs G. C. Roy, (1998) 9 SCC 410 . and State of Orissa Vs. B. N. Agarwalia, (1992) 1 SCC508, we do not see any merit in this contention. ( 5 ) IN this very case the Supreme Court had held that if the Arbitrator has construedthe terms of the contract, then the availability of another view would not justify thecourt in construing the contract differently. There is no basis in arriving at theconclusion that the Arbitrator had ignored the contract and. therefore, travelledbeyond it. ( 6 ) IN respect of Claim No. 11 fail to appreciate how there is a challenge to theaward of costs. This is solely in the discretion of the Arbitrator. The reasons whichhave persuaded me not to interfere in the Award in respect of Claim No. 10 also applyin this case. The Objections, are therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs. 1100. 00. S. No. 1986/94 ( 7 ) THIS is a petition under Section 14 (2), 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Objections filed against the impugned Award dated 5. 8. 1994 passed by Sh. N. Ramamurthy, Sole Arbitrator, have already been dismissed. I have perused itscontents and I see no reason to remit the Award or set it aside. The Award is,therefore, made Rule of the Court.