BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) OBJECTIONS to the award made by the learned arbitrator on 30. 07. 1997 have been preferred by the respondent / DDA upon filing of the petition under sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE award is in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as many of the petitioner s claims have been allowed. The award also provides for interest @ 18% per annum w. e. f 03. 01. 1992 till the date of the award as well as future interest till the date of decree or payment whichever is earlier. ( 3 ) MR Moitra, who appears for the petitioner, placed before me a judgment of my brother Justice A. K. Sikri passed in IA No. 2438/1999 in CS (OS) No. 1780a/1997 in the case of the petitioner itself. That award was also passed by the same arbitrator on the same date. He states that the claims preferred by the petitioner before the arbitrator in the present case and those in the case before Justice Sikri are identical. Justice Sikri s decision is a detailed one, in which, each of the claims have been discussed thread bare and he has found the award to be sustainable. The only interference that has been found justified is with regard to the rate of interest. He found that rate of interest of 18% is excessive and, therefore, reduced the rate of interest from 18% to 9% per annum and modified the award to this extent. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent / DDA was asked to point out differences between the present award and the award that was before Justice sikri. He points out certain differences, such as claim in respect of Item No. (v) under Claim No. 3 with regard to supply of sand. However, I find that this claim is only for a sum of Rs. 22,884/- and reasons for awarding the claim have been given upon a finding of fact arrived at by the arbitrator. He points out certain differences, such as claim in respect of Item No. (v) under Claim No. 3 with regard to supply of sand. However, I find that this claim is only for a sum of Rs. 22,884/- and reasons for awarding the claim have been given upon a finding of fact arrived at by the arbitrator. On going through the entire award, I find that apart from the fact that the identical matter has been dealt with by the judgment in the case of the petitioner itself in CS (OS) No. 1780a/1997 as noted above, the arbitrator has applied his mind fully and has arrived at findings of fact on the basis of which he has made the award. Only one decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of DDA v bhagat Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Anr. : 2004 (3) Arb. Law Reporter 548 (Delhi) (DB) needs to be referred to. In that decision after surveying various other decisions, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that if an award shows application of mind then it is not necessary that each and every detail including the disclosure of mathematical calculations in the award has to be examined or disclosed. Keeping this in mind, the principles with regard to appraisal of an award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 are quite well settled and unless the conditions specified therein in sub clause (a), (b) and (c) are satisfied any interference by the Court would not be warranted. In the present case, I do not find any such situation arising which would justify any interference with the impugned award passed except to the extent of modifying the rate of interest applicable. This interference, too, is being made because a learned Single Judge of this Court examining an identical matter between the same parties has modified the award by reducing the rate of interest from 18% to 9%. Accordingly, the award is made a rule of the Court with the modification that w. e. f. 03. 01. 1992 the rate of interest shall be 9% per annum till the date of decree. In case, the payment is made within 60 days, no future interest from the date of decree would be payable by the respondent. Accordingly, the award is made a rule of the Court with the modification that w. e. f. 03. 01. 1992 the rate of interest shall be 9% per annum till the date of decree. In case, the payment is made within 60 days, no future interest from the date of decree would be payable by the respondent. However, in case, the payment is not made within 60 days, the decree holder shall be entitled to future interest also @ 9% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of payment. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. .