ANIL KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of objections filed by Delhi Jal Board to the award dated 26th March, 1990 and the application of the petitioner under sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 3 of the interest Act for filing of the original award dated 26th March, 1990 and for making it rule of the court. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts to comprehend the disputes between the parties are that the petitioner is a partnership firm and Shri V. K. Dewan is a partner. Petitioner entered into a contract with respondent No. 1 for execution of the work of construction of storm water pump house at Shakti Nagar under-pass, Delhi and an agreement dated 18th August, 1987 bearing No. 5/1987-88 was executed between the parties. The work was executed under Executive Engineer (Dr) C-IX, New Delhi. In respect of the work executed by the petitioner, the disputes had arisen and were referred to Shri B. Dayal, respondent No. 2. The Commissioner, MCD, by his letter No. Land Officer (Water)'s 2032 dated 16th November 1988 had appointed him as an arbitrator who entered upon reference on 30th November, 1988. The petitioner filed the claim and respondent filed the counter claim for approximately Rs. 20. 00 lakh. After considering the claims, counter claims and the documents of the parties, the learned arbitrator, respondent No. 2, awarded an amount of Rs. 7,71,259. 70/- with interest @ 10% per annum from 26th March, 1990 till decree or payment whichever is earlier. ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1, Municipal Corporation of Delhi has filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 contending inter alia that the Arbitrator has mis-conducted himself as the claimant in letter for arbitration dated 4th October, 1988 claimed a total sum of rs. 7,94,660. 10?whereas the learned arbitrator has awarded a sum of rs. 8,22,038. 13 and, therefore, the arbitrator has acted beyond the scope of reference. ?the award was objected to on the ground that the material documents have been ignored which constitute a misconduct and for this the objector/respondent No. 1 relied on AIR 1977 Delhi 231. Regarding claim No. 2 for rs. 34,731. 8,22,038. 13 and, therefore, the arbitrator has acted beyond the scope of reference. ?the award was objected to on the ground that the material documents have been ignored which constitute a misconduct and for this the objector/respondent No. 1 relied on AIR 1977 Delhi 231. Regarding claim No. 2 for rs. 34,731. 60, it was contended that it was not in terms of reference and no such claim was referred by the claimant at any point of time and there is no dispute with regard to this amount between the parties. Regarding claim No. 4, the respondent No. 1/objector contended that it was patently untenable as the value of the work executed only to the extent of Rs. 12,89,689. 34 and escalation should be counted on that amount after adjusting the amount as per claim No. 3, however, the arbitrator has granted on the entire value of the contract ignoring the value of the work not executed. ( 4 ) RELYING on clause 10 -CC it was contended that it takes care of labour and material, both on cost index basis and, therefore, the claim No. 5 regarding payment of Rs. 1,01,226. 40 to the claimant on account of increase in labour wages tantamount to overlapping and giving double benefit to the contractor and clause 10 ? CC on cost index is for material and labor and not for labor wages. ?the power of the arbitrator to award interest was also questioned and it was contended that the counter claims had been rejected by the Arbitrator illegally without considering the documents in this regard. ( 5 ) THIS Court had framed following issues on 14th March, 1993 1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the objections raised in the objection petition? 2. Relief. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail and have also perused the objections filed by the objector, reply filed by the claimant, rejoinder filed by the objector to the reply to the objection by the claimant, affidavit of Shri L. N Bhatnagar EE ? DR. IX, D. W. S and S. D and the documents filed with the affidavit, documents dated 24th September, 1993 filed by the claimant and the award dated 26th March, 1990. DR. IX, D. W. S and S. D and the documents filed with the affidavit, documents dated 24th September, 1993 filed by the claimant and the award dated 26th March, 1990. ( 7 ) THE objection of the objector/delhi Jal Board is that the Arbitrator has awarded more than what is claimed by the contractor in the letter dated 4th october, 1988. According to the Objector, the petitioner/claimant had claimed a sum of Rs. 7,94,660. 10 whereas the Arbitrator has awarded a sum of rs. 8,22,038. 13. ( 8 ) PERUSAL of the claims of the claimant raised before the arbitrator and adjudicated by the Arbitrator reflects that the claimant had claimed Rs. 4,57,350 being the balance amount. According to the claimant, the lump sum amount of the contract was for a total value of Rs. 18. 50 lakh and a schedule of payment was prescribed in the agreement and against the total lump sum amount payable to the petitioner/claimant, an amount of Rs. 13,92,650/- was paid though the work was completed. The payment of the balance amount was contested by the objector on the ground that since certain recoveries were to be made, therefore, this amount of Rs. 4,57,350/- was not payable. For the recoveries which were claimed by Delhi Jal Board, separate claims were filed, which were rejected except an amount of Rs. 55,778. 40 out of which Rs. 25,778. 40 was awarded towards the balance cost of cement which claim was admitted by the claimant and another amount of rs. 25,000 was awarded to the objector for the minor works. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances, the balance amount of Rs. 4,57,350/- was ordered to be paid to the claimant by the Arbitrator. ( 9 ) ANOTHER claim of the petitioner was for 34,781. 60 on account of additional quantities used by the claimant for the extra work. The learned arbitrator has considered the fact that the claimant had submitted design duly approved and in consonance with the requirement of the agreement. However, during the execution of the work certain changes were claimed by the Municipal corporation of Delhi. The Arbitrator has considered the terms of the agreement and accordingly it has been held that the heavier design could not be demanded without first finding the defects/faults in the proposal/design submitted by the claimant. However, during the execution of the work certain changes were claimed by the Municipal corporation of Delhi. The Arbitrator has considered the terms of the agreement and accordingly it has been held that the heavier design could not be demanded without first finding the defects/faults in the proposal/design submitted by the claimant. As the Municipal Corporation of Delhi/delhi Jal Board failed to produce any defects/faults in the proposal submitted by the claimant and no record in respect thereof was produced, therefore, for the additional work got done by the respondent from the petitioner, it was held that the claimant was entitled for the extra work and consequently the amount of Rs. 34,781. 60 was awarded. ( 10 ) THE next claim of the petitioner/claimant is for Rs. 61,656. 30 on account of escalation for material and labour under clause 10 (CC)based on all india price index for the period 28th August, 1987 and till 28th February, 1988. Considering that base index for both material and labour was 16th October, 1986 and considering that the base index will get shifted to 1st May, 1987, the learned Arbitrator has worked out an amount of Rs. 56,057. 40 for the petitioner. The next claim of the petitioner/claimant was for Rs. 76,645. 40 on account of escalation for the material and labour under clause 10 (CC) from 1st March, 1988 to 30th September, 1988. Considering the terms of the contract, sub clause 10 (cc), an amount of Rs. 72,152. 90 was worked out as payable to the claimant. ( 11 ) THE next claim of the petitioner/claimant was for Rs. 1,01,226. 40 on account of increase of labour rates from Rs. 15. 90 to 18. 80 per day with effect from 1st May, 1987. The learned Arbitrator considered the claim of the petitioner and held that the payment for extra cost as per notification of Delhi administration was automatically agreed to by the respondent/objector and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,01,226. 40 on account of direction to the Municipal corporation of Delhi to produce the relevant portion of agreement of Rithala work. ( 12 ) IN the next claim no. 6 the claimant claimed Rs. 78,632/- which was for the release of security deposit. 1,01,226. 40 on account of direction to the Municipal corporation of Delhi to produce the relevant portion of agreement of Rithala work. ( 12 ) IN the next claim no. 6 the claimant claimed Rs. 78,632/- which was for the release of security deposit. It was held that the security deposit became due and was liable for refund one year after the date of completion as per the term of agreement that is on 26th August, 1989 and therefore the claim of rs. 78,632/- was allowed by the learned Arbitrator. The claimant had claimed interest on the withheld amount of Rs. 3,48,814/- @ 18% per annum, however, interest of Rs. 10,658/- @ 10% per annum was allowed for the period 9th August, 1988 to 29th September, 1988. In another claim interest @ 10% was allowed from 30th august, 1988 to 30th November, 1988 and future interest also @ 10% was awarded. The claimant had claimed a cost of Rs. 20,000/- which was dis-allowed and claim No. 10 for Rs. 1,85,000/- and claim No. 12 for Rs. 1,85,000/- were rejected. Regarding claim No. 11, it was held that it is for the Municipal corporation of Delhi which had to issue the appropriate certificate. ( 13 ) THE objector had claimed an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- pursuant to communication dated 28th March, 1989. The Arbitrator had entered upon reference on 30th November, 1988 after the Arbitrator was appointed on 16th November, 1988 and the letter dated 28th March, 1989 was issued thereafter. It was also held that the claim was issued without serving any show cause notice and without giving any due opportunity to the claimant and consequently the claim was rejected. The claim was rejected on the ground that there were certain inaccuracies in the contract documents. Another counter claim for Rs. 4,93,460. 66 was on account of allegedly providing less enforcement steel and RCC than the quantity stipulated in the contract agreement. The claim was rejected on the ground that there were certain inaccuracies in the contract documents. Another counter claim for Rs. 4,93,460. 66 was on account of allegedly providing less enforcement steel and RCC than the quantity stipulated in the contract agreement. Learned Arbitrator had noticed the original letter duly signed by the contractor which stipulates that in the event of reduction in the quantities during the execution, the respondent/objector could have been entitled for less enforcement steel and the rcc, however, since there was nothing to show that that less enforcement steel and RCC were used as most of the items claimed by the Municipal Corporation of delhi were hidden items and some of the portions of the record of measurement were not even signed or verified by the Assistant Engineer and Executive engineer and, therefore, the counter claim for the recoveries on account of using less quantities of enforcement steel and RCC was rejected. ( 14 ) THE respondent/municipal Corporation of Delhi had claimed an amount of rs. 25,778. 40 on account of balance cost of cement which was accepted by the petitioner claimant and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 25,778. 40 was awarded. The respondent/objector had also submitted a claim for Rs. 66,850/- consisting of 10 subheads amounting to Rs. 74,850/- out of which one item was withdrawn leaving the balance claim for Rs. 66,850/- under nine subheads. This claim of the municipal Corporation of Delhi was on account of minor works and as the structure made by the petitioner was found to be sound and without any defects, only an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was worked out in favor of respondent and against the claimant and thus a total amount of Rs. 50,778. 40 was awarded to the respondent/ objector. ( 15 ) IN the circumstances, the objection of the respondent that the contractor had claimed an amount of Rs. 7,94,660. 10 only and the Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,22038. 93 is without any substance. It is relevant to notice that the Arbitrator was appointed by letter dated 16th November, 1988 and along with the said letter there was no counter claim annexed for adjudication, however the amount of final bill was claimed. According to the said letter the arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the claims and counter claims of the parties and since 10 claims were filed totaling for Rs. 12,19,387. According to the said letter the arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the claims and counter claims of the parties and since 10 claims were filed totaling for Rs. 12,19,387. 70 along with interest and a sum of Rs. 8,22,083. 13 with future interest @ 10% has been awarded to the claimant and an amount of Rs. 50,778. 40 has been awarded to the respondent/objector, therefore, a sum of Rs. 7,71,251. 43 has been awarded. Therefore, even if by letter dated 4th October, 1988, an amount of rs. 7,94,660. 10 has been claimed, an amount of Rs. 7,71,251. 43 only has been awarded. If the contention of the objector is that specific claims were not referred than even the counter claim were not referred. This contention of the objector is also not sustainable because this plea was not raised before the arbitrator. ( 16 ) THIS is no more res integra that the Court cannot substitute its own decision and conclusion in interpretation of a contract which is a matter for an arbitrator to decide. As appraisement of evidence by arbitrator is never a matter which the Court questions and considers because the parties have selected their own forum and the deciding forum must be conceded the power of the appraisement of the evidence. Reliance for this can be placed on 1992 (2) RAJ 162 (SC) Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. R. J. Shah and Co. ; AIR 1990 SC 1340 , M/s. Hind Builders vs. Union of India; AIR 1989 SC 890 , Sudharshan Trading co. Vs. Government of Kerala and Anr; AIR 1989 SC 1263 , Food Corporation of india Vs. Joginder Pal Mohinder Lal and Anr. ; AIR 1971 SC 1646 , Union of India vs. Kalinga Construction Co. , AIR 1999 (3) SC 3869, Arosan Enterprises Vs. Union of India. ( 17 ) IN AIR 1991 SC 945 , S Harcharan Singh Vs Union of India; AIR 1992 SC 2192 , Hindustan Construction Co Ltd. Vs State of J and K and (2003) 8 SCC 4 , continental Construction Ltd. Vs State of U. P it was held by the Apex Court regarding interpretation of the terms of the contract that the Court can not substitute its own interpretation with that of the arbitrator so long as the interpretation of the arbitrator is a plausible one. If an interpretation to a particular clause of agreement is given by the Arbitrator, such an interpretation although may be erroneous, is final and binding and Court does not have power to upset the findings. However, if Arbitrator passes an award by ignoring the stipulation and prohibition contained in the agreement, then arbitrator travels beyond his jurisdiction. The objector is unable to show as to which clause or term of the agreement has been ignored by the Arbitrator. ( 18 ) THERE are limits for judicial reviewability and the Courts exercise limited jurisdiction in the proceeding for setting aside an award under Section 30 of the Act. The Courts do not exercise appellate jurisdiction over the verdict of an arbitrator and as such cannot go into the merits of the case nor the court can re-appraise and re-examine the evidence led?before the arbitrator. The arbitrator has given sufficient and cogent reasons for deciding the claims of the claimant and for rejecting counter claim nos. 1 and 2 of the objector in the present facts and circumstances. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Arbitrator has exceeded in his jurisdiction. There does not seem to be an error in his inferences. Even if it is presumed that there is an error in his inference, the same shall be error within his jurisdiction and this Court will not substitute its decision with the decision of an Arbitrator who has considered all the material which is also relied on by the objector. Though a ground has been taken that the Arbitrator has not considered a material document but no such document has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the objector Mr. Nayyar. ( 19 ) THE other objection raised against the award is that claim No. 1 and the counter claim No. 2 are same. The counter claim of the objector has been rejected by the Arbitrator on the ground that the measurement stated to have been actually executed at the site had not been verified even by the Assistant engineer and Executive Engineer of Delhi Jal Board/objector and because most of the items were hidden, therefore, the same could not be verified after they were covered. Since the measurement on the basis of which the objection has been raised in respect of counter claim No. 2 has been rejected and as the Arbitrator is the final Arbiter, in these facts and circumstances, the objection of the objector is not sustainable. It is settled that this Court should not reverse the findings of facts for the reason that, in the opinion of the Court, the arbitrator reached wrong conclusions or failed to appreciate the facts. In hindustan Iron Co. v. K. Shashikant and Co. , AIR 1987 SC 81 the Apex Court had held that the award of the Arbitrator ought not to be set aside for the reason that, in the opinion of the Court, the Arbitrator reached wrong conclusions or failed to appreciate the facts. This well settled proposition of law was reiterated in the decision of the Apex Court in Coimbatore District Podu thozillar Sangam vs. Balasubramania Foundary and Ors. , AIR 1987 SC 2045 where it had been opined that it is only an error of law and not a mistake of fact committed by the arbitrator which can be adjudicated in the application/objection before the Court. If there is no legal proposition either in the award or in any document annexed with the award which is erroneous and the alleged mistakes or alleged errors, are only mistakes of fact and if the award is made fairly, after giving adequate opportunity to the parties to place their grievances in the manner provided by the arbitration agreement, the award is not amenable to corrections of the Court. Similar opinions were expressed in indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Indian Carbon Ltd. , (1988) 3 SCC 36 ; Jawahar Lal wadhwa and Anr. vs. Haripada Chakroberty, (1989) 1 SCC 76 ; Puri Construction pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 411 ; Food Corporation of India vs. Joginderpal Mohinderpal and Anr. , AIR 1989 SC 1263 holding that a plausible view taken by the Arbitrator was not open to Court interference. In Municipal corporation of Delhi vs. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and Anr. , AIR 1987 SC 2316 the Court held that if the reasons appear per se to be not unreasonable and irrational the Court ought not to re-appreciate the evidence. In Municipal corporation of Delhi vs. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and Anr. , AIR 1987 SC 2316 the Court held that if the reasons appear per se to be not unreasonable and irrational the Court ought not to re-appreciate the evidence. In Hind Builders vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1340 the Court cautioned that where two views were possible it could not be predicated that there was an error apparent on the face of the award. In Bijendra Nath Srivastava vs. Mayank Srivastava and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 2562 the view expressed was that the reasonableness of reasons given by the arbitrator was not open to challenge and that the proper approach would be for the Court to support the award. Similarly, in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Governor of Orissa and Ors. , AIR 1995 SC 2189 it was reiterated that the Court cannot re-appreciate the material on the record. In Trustees of the port of Madras vs. Engineering Constructions Corporation Ltd. ,? (1995) 5 SCC 531 the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, which had reversed the Award on a question of fact and not on a question of law, was set aside by the Supreme Court. After considering its previous decisions, the Apex Court in b. V. Radha Krishna vs. Sponge Iron India Ltd. , (1997) 4 SCC 693 again held that the Court could not substitute its own view in place of that of the Arbitrator. In Army Welfare Housing Organisation vs. Gautam Construction and Fisheries Ltd. (1998) 7 SCC 290 the Court declined to vary an award for the reason that without re-appreciating evidence it would not be possible to fault the quantum awarded towards anticipated expenses. In any case, it cannot be said considering all the facts that the Arbitrator has committed error in excess of jurisdiction. If that be so then this Court will not substitute its inferences with that of the arbitrator. This objection of the objector is, therefore, not sustainable. ( 20 ) THE objection regarding the claim No. 2 that it was never raised in terms of reference is also not sustainable in the facts and circumstances. No such objection was taken before the Arbitrator. In any case the Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the claims and counter claims between the parties and the claims have been specifically raised before the Arbitrator. No such objection was taken before the Arbitrator. In any case the Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the claims and counter claims between the parties and the claims have been specifically raised before the Arbitrator. The claim of rs. 34,731. 60 has been allowed on the ground that that during the course of work, the contractor was directed to give a heavier design which could be demanded by the objector only on finding defects/faults with the design submitted by the contractor/petitioner. Since the respondent/objector failed to produce anything that the design submitted by the petitioner was defective or inappropriate, therefore, any extra work got done by the respondent without adjudicating the design submitted by the claimant, was liable to be paid for by the respondent. These aspects have been considered by the Arbitrator and an amount of rs. 34,731. 60 has been awarded and on the objections raised by the objector, the same cannot be interfered with for the reasons as detailed hereinabove. ( 21 ) THE objection of the objector regarding claim Nos. 3, 4 and 5 being patently untenable being for the same claim of the petitioner,is not correct. The claim No. 4 is for escalation for the period from 1st March, 1988 to 30th september, 1988 under Clause 10 (CC) whereas the claim No. 5 is on account of extension of validity of the agreement which was agreed on the condition that the labour rates were to be increased from Rs. 15. 90 to Rs. 18. 82 per day with effect from 1st May, 1987 whereas the claim No. 3 was for the period till 28th february, 1988. Apparently, the claim Nos. 3 and 4 are for different periods and there is no overlapping. It is not disputed in view of the finding of the arbitrator that the escalation should be awarded in terms of clause 10 (CC) of the agreement and consequently the objection of the objector is not sustainable. ( 22 ) THE objection of the objector that the security of Rs. 2,78,632/- was not refundable as the said sum had been adjusted against the counter claim of rs. 1,85,000/- on account of alleged compensation for delay cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances. The counter claim of the objector for rs. 1,85,000/- was rejected entailing refund of Rs. 78,632/- claimed by the claimant. 2,78,632/- was not refundable as the said sum had been adjusted against the counter claim of rs. 1,85,000/- on account of alleged compensation for delay cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances. The counter claim of the objector for rs. 1,85,000/- was rejected entailing refund of Rs. 78,632/- claimed by the claimant. The objection, in the facts and circumstances, is not sustainable and the award cannot be set aside on this ground. ( 23 ) THE objection of the objector that the arbitrator could not award the interest is also not sustainable. The Apex Court in Secretary Irrigation department Vs G C Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508 had over ruled the ratio of Engineer (Irrigation) Balimela and ors. Vs. Abhaduta Jena and ors. (1988) 1 SCC 418 and had held that the Arbitrator is competent to award interest. Relying on G. C Roy (supra) in Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division v. N. C. Budharaj, (2001) 2 SCC 721 , at Page 741 ?had held as under: "22. There can be no controversy over the position that the Constitution Bench of this Court in G. C. Roy case while declaring that the decision in Jena case does not lay down good law upheld, as a consequence the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to award only pendente lite interest, as explained and highlighted in the subsequent decisions of this Court. When the claim involved for consideration in G. C. Roy case was only with reference to pendente lite interest it cannot be expected of the court to travel outside, except for analysing the general principles, to academically adjudicate the other aspects of the matter also decided by the Bench in Jena case and overrule the same on such other points too. Be that as it may, the ratio or the basis of reasons and principles underlying a decision is distinct from the ultimate relief granted or manner of disposal adopted in a given case. While laying down Principle ( i ) in para 43, it has been in unmistakable terms declared (at SCC p. ? 533) that the basic proposition that a person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, by whatever name it may be called, viz. While laying down Principle ( i ) in para 43, it has been in unmistakable terms declared (at SCC p. ? 533) that the basic proposition that a person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, by whatever name it may be called, viz. , interest, compensation or damages, ?is as valid for the period the dispute is pending before the arbitrator as it is for the period prior to the arbitrator entering upon the reference?. The efficacy and binding nature of this declaration of law cannot be either diminished or whittled down even on any known principle underlying the doctrine of ?stare decisis?. The same is the position with reference to Principles ( ii ) and ( iii ). It cannot be legitimately contended that these principles would either vary or could be different in a case relating to the award of interest for the pre-reference period and to assume such a contra position in juxtaposition would not only be destructive in nature but also illogical and self-contradictory resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. Some of the very reasons and principles which weighed with the Constitution Bench in G. C. Roy case to sustain the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to award pendente lite interest in a claim arising out of an agreement which does not also prohibit the grant of interest, in our view would equally suffice and provide sound basis of reasoning for upholding the power of the arbitrator to award interest in respect of the pre-reference period, too. The further fact that the decisions of this Court, including the Jena case, envisaged four circumstances or contingencies wherein such interest for pre-reference period can be countenanced by the arbitrator, is by itself sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the arbitrator to entertain and consider the said claim also, and consequently there is no justification to thwart the same even at the threshold denying the arbitrator power even to entertain the claim as such. " Therefore, it cannot be disputed any more that the Arbitrator had the power to award the interest which has been awarded. The claimant had claimed the interest @ 18% per annum and after considering the facts and circumstances the learned Arbitrator has awarded interest @ 10% per annum which cannot be faulted in the facts and circumstances. " Therefore, it cannot be disputed any more that the Arbitrator had the power to award the interest which has been awarded. The claimant had claimed the interest @ 18% per annum and after considering the facts and circumstances the learned Arbitrator has awarded interest @ 10% per annum which cannot be faulted in the facts and circumstances. ( 24 ) THE objection of the counter claimant/objector that the Arbitrator has traveled beyond the admitted facts in rejecting the counter claim of the respondent is also without any basis. No particulars have been given nor has been argued as to how the Arbitrator has traveled beyond which facts. On the bald objection of the respondent/objector that the counter claim has been rejected illegally, the award rejecting the counter claim of the objector cannot be set aside. There is nothing to show that the award is patently bad and is liable to be set aside. The counter claim No. 1 has also been rejected on the ground that the order which is the basis for the counter claim No. 1 was issued without serving any show cause and without giving any particulars to the claimant and it is contrary to the specific provision of the agreement and the order was issued after the Arbitrator had entered upon reference. This has also been noticed that two sets of conditions were filed before the Arbitrator alleging to be the terms of the agreement. In one set of conditions power to levy compensation was with the Chief Engineer and in the second set of terms and conditions filed the power to levy compensation was with the Municipal Engineer and the Executive Engineer. Since the respondent themselves were not certain as to who was entitled to levy compensation, the rejection of their counter claim cannot be faulted in the facts and circumstances on this ground also. In any case, the claim of the claimant has been upheld except the claim of cost and claims nos, 11 and 13 and the interest has also been awarded @10% per annum instead of @ 18% per annum and the counter claim has been rejected except for an amount of Rs. 25,778. 40 on account of balance cost of cement and a sum of rs. 25,000/- out of the claim of Rs. 66,850/- for minor claims. 25,778. 40 on account of balance cost of cement and a sum of rs. 25,000/- out of the claim of Rs. 66,850/- for minor claims. ( 25 ) IN the circumstances, objections raised by the objectors are without any merit as the objector is unable to point out any patent illegality as the arbitrator has taken the material before him into consideration and has arrived at just inference. The objections are, therefore, without any merit. ( 26 ) I, therefore, dismiss the objections of the respondent being I. A no. 8459 of 1990 under section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and allow the application of the petitioner under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and make the award dated 26th March, 1990 Rule of the Court. Consequently, decree sheet be drawn in accordance with the award. I also award future simple interest @10% per annum from the date of decree till realization of decreetal amount on the net amount awarded by the Arbitrator on the claims and counter claims of the parties excluding the amount of interest awarded by the Arbitrator in the Award dated 26th March, 1990. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.