SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) IA 11065/1997 (under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940) the respondent no. 1 awarded the work to the petitioner regarding renovation of plumbing and drainage in guest rooms and shafts at Hotel Airport Ashoka, calcutta as per terms and conditions of the work order dated 22. 02. 1991 which contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arose between the parties which were referred to sole arbitration of Sh. T. C. Garg, who made and published his award dated 23. 04. 1997. The respondent no. 1 aggrieved by the same, has filed the present objections. The arbitrator awarded some of the claims of the petitioner and counter claims of the respondent no. 1 were rejected. ( 2 ) ON 13. 12. 2005 when this matter was listed, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 informed the court that he was no more on the panel of respondent no. 1, but assured that the respondent no. 1 will be represented on the subsequent dates of hearing. Today again none has appeared for the respondent no. 1 who has filed the objections. In view of the aforesaid, I have considered it appropriate to peruse the objections and I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 3 ) A perusal of the objections shows that the grievances of the respondent no. 1 are in the nature of alleged failure of the arbitrator to appreciate the evidence appropriately which had been placed before him. It is not the function of this court to re-appreciate the evidence or interfere with an award merely on the basis that the court would come to a different conclusion on the material available before the arbitrator. Unless an award is contrary to law and misconduct is with reference to either personal misconduct of the arbitrator or misconduct of law, award ought not to be interfered with. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal and Anr. , (1989) 2 SCC 347 . The Supreme Court has observed in M/s Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Govt of Kerala; AIR 1989 Supreme Court 890 that so long as the view taken by the arbitrator is plausible, though perhaps not the only correct view, the award cannot be examined by the court. , (1989) 2 SCC 347 . The Supreme Court has observed in M/s Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Govt of Kerala; AIR 1989 Supreme Court 890 that so long as the view taken by the arbitrator is plausible, though perhaps not the only correct view, the award cannot be examined by the court. In such a situation, the High Court was held to have no jurisdiction to examine different items clause by clause by the arbitrator and to hold that under the contract these were not sustainable in the facts found by the arbitrator. This is exactly what the respondent no. 1 is seeking from this Court as the grounds relate to various claims awarded and as to why they ought not to have been awarded on the material placed before the arbitrator. ( 4 ) THE only other question to be considered is of interest since the arbitrator had granted interest at the rate of 12 per cent in case payment was made within two months, but the respondent no. 1 was liable to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum beyond the period of two months. After some hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner himself confines his claim of interest at the rate of 12 per cent till the date of decree and that too only on the principal amount. ( 5 ) THE objections stand disposed of. CS (OS) No. 1457a/1997 ( 6 ) IN view of objections having been disposed of, the award of the sole arbitrator of Sh. T. C. Garg, dated 23. 04. 1997 is made rule of the court with the modification that the petitioner is held entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 23. 07. 1993 till the date of decree on the principal awarded amount against claims no. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10. It is made clear that no interest has been awarded on the interest amount and the principal amounts awarded shall carry simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till the date of decree from 23. 07. 1993. The petitioner shall also be entitled to future interest from the date of decree of till date of realisation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum simple interest. Parties are left to bear their own costs. ( 7 ) DECREE sheet be drawn up accordingly. 07. 1993. The petitioner shall also be entitled to future interest from the date of decree of till date of realisation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum simple interest. Parties are left to bear their own costs. ( 7 ) DECREE sheet be drawn up accordingly. .