REVA KHETRAPAL, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996, the Petitioner Delhi Development Authority seeks to challenge the award made and published on 10th January, 2005 by the learned Arbitrator, justice Avadh Behari Rohatgi (Retired ). ( 2 ) THE arbitration case, as noticed by the learned Arbitrator, had a long and chequered history. The contract in question related to construction of storm Water Drain in Zones E-8 to E-12 in Vikas Marg and Rajdhani Enclave, New delhi. In response to the notification of the Petitioner inviting tenders, the respondent submitted its tender, which after deliberations was accepted by the petitioner vide letter dated 11th January, 1983. Consequently, an Agreement no. 56/dd-7/1982-83 was executed between the parties, wherein the date of the start of the work was stated as 21st January, 1983 and the date of completion of work was set out as 20th January, 1984. Thus, the time allowed for the period of completion of work was twelve months. The estimated cost of the work contract was Rs. 35,03,088/- with an enhancement of Rs. 127. 50% above the estimated cost. The total value of the work was fixed at Rs. 79,69,521/- being the tender amount. ( 3 ) THE work remained incomplete. The Delhi Development Authority rescinded the contract on 6th January, 1987 alleging slow progress on the part of the contractor and inability to complete the work. After the contract was rescinded, the contractor made a petition under Section 8 and 20 of the arbitration Act of 1940 for appointment of an arbitrator, which was registered as a suit, being Suit No. 1062/1987. The High Court appointed Shri V. R. Vaish, retd. Director General of Works, CPWD. His appointment was revoked. Shri G. S. Rao, Retd. Director General of Works, CPWD was then appointed in his place. Unfortunately, Shri Rao died. Thereafter another application was made to the high Court by the contractor for appointment of an arbitrator, resulting in the appointment of Justice R. L. Gupta (Retired) on 27th September, 2002 in Suit no. 1062/1987. The learned Arbitrator, Justice Gupta held a number of sittings in 2003. By his order dated 12th March, 2003 he held that the arbitral proceedings in this case will be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 and not by the old Act of 1940. 1062/1987. The learned Arbitrator, Justice Gupta held a number of sittings in 2003. By his order dated 12th March, 2003 he held that the arbitral proceedings in this case will be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 and not by the old Act of 1940. However, on 12th May, 2003 Justice r. L. Gupta (Retd.) resigned. By order dated 25th September, 2003 in I. A. No. 7483 of 2003 in Suit No. 1062/1987, Justice Avadh Behari Rohatgi (Retired) was appointed as the sole Arbitrator and it fell to his lot to decide the dispute between the parties. However, the counter claim of Rs. 40,781. 91 dated 13th july, 2003, which was filed before the previous Arbitrator Justice R. L. Gupta (Retired), was not pressed by the D. D. A. before the present Arbitrator and a statement to this effect was recorded by the learned Arbitrator on 8th september, 2002. The counter claim was accordingly dismissed as not pressed. ( 4 ) THE learned Arbitrator after considering the entire documentary evidence on record and hearing the parties made and published his award on 10th january, 2005 for Rs. 20,32,358/- in favour of the claimant/respondent M/s Anand and Associates (contractors) and against the respondent No. 1 (Petitioner herein)with interest @ 18% p. a. from 25th April, 1987 till realization. The following amounts were awarded:- . . Claim No. A Claimant claims Rs. One lakh being the refund of Security Deposit which has been wrongfully and unjustifiably denied. Claim No. B Claimant claims a sum of Rs. 1,85,809 /- for additional work executed at the bidding of the respondent vide clause 12 of the Agreement. Claim Nos. Candd Claimant claims balance sum of Rs. 10,42,136 /- for the work done but not paid. Claim Nos. Eandf Claimant claims payment under clause 10-C of the Agreement and also payable as damages due to execution of the work during prolongation from date of stipulated completion till actual completion=9,23,258. 83 3,50,000 Claim No. G Rs . 3,48,563. 40 being the anticipated loss of profit as part of the work was not allowed to be executed because of the wrongful recission of the contract Claim No. H Claim for Rs. 70,000 /- payable as rehandling of bricks by shifting from Vikas Marg to Parwana Road and adjoining places. Claim No. I Claimant claims damages to the tune of Rs. 70,000 /- payable as rehandling of bricks by shifting from Vikas Marg to Parwana Road and adjoining places. Claim No. I Claimant claims damages to the tune of Rs. 3,61,833/- on account of maintaining and repairing collapse to earth, pumping of cast by broken mains and drains, repairing the sewer line and deployment of watch and ward Claim No. J Interest Interest @ 18% p. a. on Rs. 20,32,358 20,32,358 (In Rupees) 1,00,000 10,42,136 3,48,563 Rejected Rejected. Rejected 1,91,659 Claim No. K Costs 1,00,000 ( 5 ) THE Petitioner seeks to assail the findings of the learned Arbitrator relating to the award of Claims No. A,c,d,e,f,g,j and K by filing the present objection Petition. The respondent/contractor naturally maintains that the objections of the Petitioner, to the award of the aforesaid claims, are misconceived and not maintainable. ( 6 ) THE Petitioner claims that the learned Arbitrator has wrongly stated that PWD's permission for cutting the road was the foundation on which the parties contracted and that the Delhi Development Authority was unable to hand over PWD's permission to the contractor and to deliver the possession of clear site with such permission. Petitioner also claims that the learned Arbitrator has misconstrued the facts by stating that the respondent/contractor cannot be blamed if 12 months contract became one of 47 months. ( 7 ) THE respondent/contractor, on the other hand, maintains that the entire delay was attributable to the Petitioner alone and it was because of the lapse and illegal rescission of the contract at the end of the petitioner that the work could not be completed by the respondent. According to the respondent/contractor, the Arbitrator has given detailed findings of fact in this regard which cannot be assailed in law. The respondent contends that the respondent cannot be held responsible for any liability, the rescission of the contract by the Petitioner's letter dated 6th January, 1987 having been held to be illegal by the Learned Arbitrator on the premise that the hindrances, delay and breaches were at the end of the petitioner alone. ( 8 ) COUNSEL for the respondent further contends that in law the Objection petition is wholly misconceived. In this context, reliance was placed by learned counsel for the respondent on a number of judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 1677 = 1964 (3) SCR 410 Santa Sila Devi Vs. ( 8 ) COUNSEL for the respondent further contends that in law the Objection petition is wholly misconceived. In this context, reliance was placed by learned counsel for the respondent on a number of judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 1677 = 1964 (3) SCR 410 Santa Sila Devi Vs. Dhirendra nath Sen; AIR 1987 SC 81 Hindustan Tea Co. Vs. K. Sashikant and Anr. ; AIR 1988 sc 1099 International Airports Authority Vs. K. D. Bali; AIR 1989 SC 777 = (1989)1 SCC 411 Puri Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India; AIR 1989 SC 890 sudarsan Trading Co. Vs. Govt. of Kerela; AIR 1989 SC 973 Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Unique Erectors ( Gujrat (P) Ltd. ; AIR 1989 SC 1263 = AIR 1989 (2) SCC 347 Food Corporation of India Vs. Joginderpal Mohinder Pal; AIR 2005 SC 2071 = 2005 (6) SCC 462 Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. to urge that the jurisdiction of this court is circumscribed by the provisions of the Act. When the Court is called upon to decide the objections raised by a party against an arbitral award, it has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal and examine the correctness of the award on a reappraisal of the evidence. The award cannot be set aside by the Court on the ground that the Arbitrator reached a wrong conclusion or failed to appreciate the facts. In the case of a speaking award when the arbitrator has given reasons for his conclusion, unless it is demonstrated to the Court that such reasons are erroneous as propositions of law or the view which the arbitrator has taken is a view which could not possibly be sustained on any view of the matter, the award of the arbitrator must be sustained. ( 9 ) KEEPING in mind the aforesaid settled position of law, it is proposed to deal with the objections of the Petitioner and the findings of the learned arbitrator thereon claim-wise with a view to ascertain if the findings can be faulted. Claims of the Contractor claim No. A:- Claimant claims Rs. One lakh being the refund of security Deposit which has been wrongfully and unjustifiably denied. Claims of the Contractor claim No. A:- Claimant claims Rs. One lakh being the refund of security Deposit which has been wrongfully and unjustifiably denied. ( 10 ) THE Petitioner-Delhi Development Authority asserts that as per Clause 3 (a), (b) and (c) of the Agreement, the contract was rightly rescinded by letter dated 6th January, 1987 (Annexure-A to the petition) after issuance of show cause notices dated 29th July, 1985, 25th November, 1985 and 2nd September, 1986 (Annexure A-1 collectively), as the progress of the contractor was only approximately 50 per cent. The case of the contractor, on the other hand, is that the fault was entirely of the Delhi Development Authority, in as much as the site was not made available to him and the permission for cutting the road was not obtained from the Police and other concerned authorities during the currency of the contract. ( 11 ) THE learned Arbitrator has rightly observed that the first and foremost question which arises for consideration in this case is whether rescission of the contract was illegal as contended by the contractor, or it is perfectly in terms of the agreement as claimed by the Delhi Development authority. After referring to Clause 2 of the agreement between the parties and relying upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of hind Construction Contractors Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 720 , the learned Arbitrator held that in the instant case time was not the essence of the contract as there were provisions in the contract for extension of the time as well as for penalty for each day's delay, and the provision in Clause 2 that time shall be the essence of the contract was accordingly rendered ineffective. ( 12 ) BEFORE proceeding any further, the judgment of the Apex Court in Hind construction Contractors may be referred to. The Supreme Court in the said case has held that the question whether or not time was of the essence of the contract is essentially a question of the intention of the parties to be gathered from the terms of the contract. The Supreme Court in the said case has held that the question whether or not time was of the essence of the contract is essentially a question of the intention of the parties to be gathered from the terms of the contract. Even when the parties have expressly provided (as in the present case by way of Clause 2) that time will be the essence of the contract that stipulation will have to be read along with other provisions of the contract and such other provisions may, on the construction of the contract, exclude the presumption that the completion of work by a particular date was intended to be fundamental, for instance if the contract were to include clauses providing for extension of time in certain contingencies or for payment of penalty for delay if the work undertaken remains unfinished on the expiry of the time provided in the contract. Such clauses would be considered as rendering ineffective the express provision relating to time being of the essence of the contract. ( 13 ) IN paragraph 16 and 17 of the award, the learned Arbitrator has held that above proposition enunciated by the Supreme Court clearly applies to the facts of this case as there is a provision for extension of time as well as for payment of penalty for each day's delay. Therefore, the provision in Clause 2 that time shall be the essence of the contract is rendered ineffective. In such a case law further requires that the employer must fix further period making time of the essence of the contract and directing the contractor to complete the work within the period so fixed and if he fails to do so, then the contract may be rescinded because the contractor has failed to complete the work within the extended period fixed by the employer for the completion of the work. The learned Arbitrator, therefore, came to the conclusion that the rescission of the contract on the part of the Delhi Development Authority without fixing any further period making time the essence and without directing the contractor to complete the work within such fixed period was clearly illegal and, therefore, the Delhi Development Authority committed breach of the contract and as a result the security deposited by the contractor could not be forfeited under law. ( 14 ) THE learned Arbitrator went on to hold that if the contractor was unduly delaying the work, as is the case of the Delhi Development Authority here, it was the duty of the Engineer-in-Charge to give him notice to complete within a fixed reasonable time, and upon default therein by the contractor, the engineer-in-Charge would have been justified in refusing to allow the contractor to proceed further and to determine the contract after expiry of the extended period of time. ( 15 ) AS regards the availability of the 'site', the learned Arbitrator referred to the Notice Inviting Tenders which provided:-"?2. A The site for the work is available. " admittedly the site for the work was not made available to the contractor as the delhi Development Authority had not obtained PWD's permission for cutting the road so essential for the completion of the work. The road belonged to the PWD of the Delhi Administration. It is rightly noted by the learned Arbitrator that by letters dated 16th May, 1984 and 25th April, 1984 money was sent to the pwd for obtaining the requisite permission. The stipulated date of completion was 20th January, 1984 which had already passed. The Delhi Development authority was writing in April, 1984 for permission for cutting the road by sending money. The Delhi Development Authority claims that by letter dated 27th may, 1986 (Annexure A-2), DDA communicated to the contractor the permission of the police given by the Deputy Commissioner of Traffic Police. So it is apparent that the permission from the police came after two years and four months of the stipulated date of completion. Even this letter of 27th May, 1986 was never communicated to the contractor as is clear from the following findings recorded by the learned Arbitrator. ( 16 ) THE learned Arbitrator records that by letter dated 18th November, 1985 the contractor drew the attention of the Delhi Development Authority to a number of letters he had written to the Delhi Development Authority, including letters dated 7th June, 1983 and 24th July, 1985, regarding the difficulties he was facing in the completion of the work in the absence of permission from PWD for the construction of the drain and that the complete site had not been provided to him. Learned Arbitrator also referred to letters dated 7th October, 1985 and 9th April, 1986 written by the Delhi Development Authority to the contractor for reaching the conclusion that only 50% of the site was available and not 100% as set out in Clause 2-A of the Agreement. The learned arbitrator further recorded that on 11th July, 1986 the contractor asked for extension of time because he was assured that permission from PWD will be obtained shortly. By this time the contractor had completed work worth Rs. 55 lakhs and executed it to the satisfaction of the Delhi Development Authority, but no extension of time was granted. After referring to the entire correspondence, the learned arbitrator came to the conclusion that till the end permission from PWD was not communicated to the contractor and that the hindrances of which he complained were not removed or remedied. According to the learned Arbitrator, the document dated 9th April, 1986 is a clincher and it shows unmistakably and unambiguously that Delhi Development Authority was not able to provide the site for work and that its representation that the site is available was a misrepresentation. In this letter it is clearly mentioned that ?permission will be taken shortly? and it is ?in process?. ( 17 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, in my view, no fault can be found with the finding of the learned Arbitrator that there was repudiatory breach by the delhi Development Authority and the same was entirely the fault of the Delhi development Authority. This also resulted in extra cost to the contractor for whom the contract became more onerous than the parties had contemplated. Learned Arbitrator has correctly concluded that if Delhi Development Authority was unable to hand over the permission of the PWD to the contractor and was unable to deliver the possession of the clear site with such permission, the contractor cannot be blamed for 12 months contract becoming one of 47 months. The rescission was wrongful and Clause 2a of the Agreement that site was available to the contractor was wholly false as the clear site was not made available to the contractor till the end. Forfeiture of security without previously giving notice to the contractor to complete the work within reasonable time was wrongful. (See Lowther Vs. Heaver (1989) 41 Ch. D 248 at p. 268 per; Lindley L. J. and Charles Rickards Vs. Forfeiture of security without previously giving notice to the contractor to complete the work within reasonable time was wrongful. (See Lowther Vs. Heaver (1989) 41 Ch. D 248 at p. 268 per; Lindley L. J. and Charles Rickards Vs. Oppenheim (1950) 1 KB 616 (CA ). Claim No. B:- Claimant claims a sum of Rs. 1,85,809/- for additional work executed at the bidding of the respondent vide clause 12 of the agreement. ( 18 ) THIS claim of the contractor was rejected by the learned arbitrator and is not the subject matter of the present petition. Claim No. Candd Claimant claims balance sum of Rs. 10,42,136/- for the work done but not paid. ( 19 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned arbitrator has committed an error while awarding Claims Candd in favour of the claimant as the 11th and the final bill was prepared by the Petitioner-DDA after the joint measurement was carried out by the Petitioner under intimation to the respondent and as such the said measurement became binding upon the claimant-respondent. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the Arbitrator has rightly relied upon the report of the local Commissioner appointed by the orders of the High Court in view of the fact that the 11th Bill was his running account bill and after the said bill the respondent had carried out more works for which no payments were realized by the respondent. ( 20 ) A perusal of the Award shows that the learned Arbitrator has recorded the admission of the Delhi Development Authority that payment was made for the work done up to 22nd May, 1986 and thereafter the work continued till the contract was terminated on 6th January, 1987. Therefore, the Delhi Development authority was clearly liable to pay for the work done and executed for the period intervening the last payment and the date of recession. Accordingly, the High Court by order dated 22nd May, 1987 restrained the Delhi Development authority from getting the work executed through another agency till the measurement of the claimant's work was completed. In the presence of both parties the Engineer appointed by the Court took the measurement which was duly signed by the parties. The joint measurement recorded by High Court's orders entitled the contractor to payment of the balance of Rs. In the presence of both parties the Engineer appointed by the Court took the measurement which was duly signed by the parties. The joint measurement recorded by High Court's orders entitled the contractor to payment of the balance of Rs. 10,42,136/- as claimed by him over and above the sum of Rs. 46,93,164/- paid by the Delhi Development authority for the works done. The claim was, therefore, rightly allowed by the learned Arbitrator. Claim Eandf:- Claimant claims payment under clause 10-C of the agreement and also payable as damages due to execution of the work during prolongation from date of stipulated completion till actual completion=9,23,258. 83. ( 21 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that the learned Arbitrator committed error by awarding a sum of Rs. 5,41,659/- in claims Eandf in favour of the claimant-respondent in the absence of documentary evidence such as books of account in support of the said claims. The respondent, on the other hand, submits that in view of the fact that there was no dispute between the parties that statutory increase had come into force during the currency of the contract and the respondent had to incur the extra expenses on labour and materials on account of the said statutory increase, the learned Arbitrator has rightly awarded the amount of Rs. 1,91,659/- on account of labour increase and rs. 3,50,000/- on account of increase in the price of materials. ( 22 ) IT is noteworthy that the respondent-claimant though had claimed an amount of Rs. 7,31,599/- towards increase in the price of materials, the learned arbitrator after recording that no books of account could be produced in support of the claim has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- only on account of increase in price of materials proceeding on such material as was available on record. ( 23 ) IT is not the contention of the Petitioner-Delhi Development Authority that there was no increase in the price of the materials during this period and indeed it is not open to the Delhi Development Authority to contend so. The learned Arbitrator, therefore, in my view rightly awarded the claims under the head of statutory increase and no fault can be found with the award on this score. Claim No. G:- Rupees 3,48,563. The learned Arbitrator, therefore, in my view rightly awarded the claims under the head of statutory increase and no fault can be found with the award on this score. Claim No. G:- Rupees 3,48,563. 40 being the anticipated loss of profit as part of the work was not allowed to be executed because of the wrongful recission of the contract. ( 24 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned arbitrator while awarding the amount under Claim G for anticipated loss of profit in favour of the claimant, has wrongly held that the contractor was ready and willing to complete the work but the Department had failed to provide the road cutting permission from the PWD and police permission and as such was liable to compensate the contractor. He further contends that the findings of the learned Arbitrator are contrary to the material and the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the law in this regard is absolutely clear. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. T. Brij Paul singh Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1984 SC 1703 awarded anticipatory loss of profit to the contractor on finding the other party guilty of repudiatory breach of contract and that the award in this regard cannot be assailed in law. ( 25 ) THERE is no denying the fact that in 1986, the Delhi Development authority was still writing to the contractor that permission from the PWD would be taken shortly and the matter was ?in process? (letter dated 9. 4. 1986 ). There is also no denying the fact that the contractor was stuck with the contract. He was left in limbo. He could not go forward and he could not go back. Such was the awkward situation. He executed the work of the value of Rs. 56,45,764/- and the balance work was ? snatched? away from him wrongfully. On the date of termination of the contract the balance work was of the value of Rs. 23,23,756/-on which he claims profit @ 15 per cent. ( 26 ) THE Supreme Court in A. T. Brij Paul Singh (supra) has held that a reasonable expectation of profit is implicit in a works contract and its loss has to be compensated by way of damages if the other party is guilty of breach of contract. 23,23,756/-on which he claims profit @ 15 per cent. ( 26 ) THE Supreme Court in A. T. Brij Paul Singh (supra) has held that a reasonable expectation of profit is implicit in a works contract and its loss has to be compensated by way of damages if the other party is guilty of breach of contract. The rescission was held unjustified and damages at the rate of 15 per cent as damages for loss of profit were awarded by the Supreme Court on the value of the balance work which remained unexecuted. This case is on all fours with the present case. Following this decision, the learned Arbitrator has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 3,48,563/- to the respondent-contractor on account of loss of profit. Viewed from any angle the said award for anticipated loss of profit cannot be faulted and the objection of the Petitioner-Delhi development Authority in this regard is clearly unsustainable. Claim No. H:- Claim for Rs. 70,000/- payable as rehandling of bricks by shifting from Vikas Marg to Parwana Road and adjoining places. ( 27 ) THIS claim was rejected by the learned Arbitrator and no objection to the said rejection has been filed by the respondent. There is, therefore, no necessity to dwell on the same. Claim No. I:- Claimant claims damages to the tune of Rs. 3,61,833/- on account of maintaining and repairing collapse to earth, pumping of cast by broken mains and drains, repairing the sewer line and deployment of watch and ward. ( 28 ) THIS claim too is rejected by the learned Arbitrator and no objection in support of the same is filed. Claim No. J:- Interest. ( 29 ) THE contractor claims interest @ 18 per cent per annum on the awarded sum from the date of filing of the petition on 25th April, 1987 till realisation. ( 30 ) IN the context of the above claim, the learned Arbitrator has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Santokh Singh Arora Vs. Union of India air 1992 SC 1809 wherein the Supreme Court has laid down that interest should be allowed for the period the matter was pending in arbitration since appointment of the first arbitrator by the named authority or in the courts in connection with proceedings arising out of the said arbitration till date of the award of the arbitrator appointed by the Supreme Court. In the said case the Supreme Court held that the claimant was entitled to be compensated for denial of his legitimate dues during the period from December 18, 1968 when the first arbitrator was appointed till the date of the award dated 18. 08. 1990. This was a period of 22 years and the court awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to be paid to the appellant by the Union of India within one month. Here the period, as noticed by the learned Arbitrator, is 17 years for which interest is claimed. The arbitrator/arbitral tribunal has been given the power to award interest under the new Act ?at such rate as it deems reasonable, on the whole or part of the money, for the whole or part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made?. ( 31 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the award of interest @ 18 per cent per annum on the awarded sum (i. e. Rs. 20,32,358/-) from the date of the filing of the petition till realisation is held to be wholly justified. Claim No. K:- Costs. Claimant claims cost of Rs. One Lakh on account of the improprieties committed by the respondents and the claimants were dragged to litigation. ( 32 ) COSTS of litigation of Rs. One Lakh is awarded by the learned arbitrator and the claimant held entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 30,000/-from the Delhi Development Authority as arbitrator's fee paid by the respondent to the arbitrator on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority. ( 33 ) IT is contended by the Petitioner-Delhi Development Authority that the arbitrator committed error while awarding the cost of litigation in favour of the respondent, without giving any basis for arriving at the said figure. The said contention, to my mind, is specious to say the least. The contract was rescinded on 6th January, 1987. The award was made and published on 10th january, 2005, i. e,, after a lapse of 17 years. For 17 years the respondent-contractor was not paid what was due to him and had to incur expenditure on litigating with the Delhi Development Authority. The learned Arbitrator has rightly awarded costs in favour of the respondent-claimant. The award was made and published on 10th january, 2005, i. e,, after a lapse of 17 years. For 17 years the respondent-contractor was not paid what was due to him and had to incur expenditure on litigating with the Delhi Development Authority. The learned Arbitrator has rightly awarded costs in favour of the respondent-claimant. Conclusion:- ( 34 ) AS noticed above, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the award in the instant case is a reasoned award. The objections which have been raised against the award are such that they cannot be taken into consideration within the limited ambit of challenge admissible under the scheme of the Arbitration Act. The award of the Arbitrator is based on plausible view and upon settled propositions of law. Beyond this, it is not open to this Court to examine in minute detail the evidenciary challenge raised to the award. ( 35 ) NEEDLESS to state that the above position of law is too well established to require any further discussion. The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that it is not open to this Court to sit in appeal over the findings of the arbitrator by re-examining and re-assessing the materials. ( 36 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the objections to the award are held to be unsustainable and are dismissed and the award is made a rule of the court. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.