Judgment :- This petition has been filed challenging the award dated 011. 2000 passed by the second respondent/ Arbitrator, under Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1996). 2. The first respondent herein called for tender on 2. 1994 for the work of construction of common facility building at Koyambedu wholesale market and the petitioners tender was accepted on 111. 1994. Thereafter, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent on 04.01.1995 and the total value of the contract was Rs.90,78,610/-. The period fixed for the completion of the work was nine months from the date of handing over of the site. 3. Differences arose between the parties and the petitioner by letter dated 27. 1997, tried to address to the first respondent to redress his grievances and as there was no response from the first respondent, the petitioner filed O.P.No.96 of 1998 before this court for appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties in respect of the agreement. This court by order dated 17.02.1999, appointed the second respondent as the sole Arbitrator and accordingly, the arbitration proceedings commenced before him. 4. The petitioner filed a claim statement by setting out the following grievances namely: 1. Though the tender was called on 03.02.1994, the site itself was handed over for work on 20.02.1995; 2. The first respondent stopped the work from 02.05.1995 to 13.06.1995 for no obvious reason which resulted in the delay of execution of the work by 40 days; 3. The first respondent failed to indent for steel for the work which necessitated the petitioner for procuring the same from the open market and the non supply of steel caused delay in the execution of work by six months. 4. By letter dated 24.06.1995, the first respondent directed the petitioner to procure 100 mm dia pipes whereas as per the terms of the contract 50 mm and 80 mm dia pipes were to be procured and supplied to the contractors. 5. The first respondent furnished the levels for the slope roof after a delay of 8 months and the approval for kota stones and Aluminium Louvers was given only on 011. 5. The first respondent furnished the levels for the slope roof after a delay of 8 months and the approval for kota stones and Aluminium Louvers was given only on 011. 1995; further, there was a delay of 18 months in respect of rates for special plywood centering additional height involved in centering and frame work for slope roof for the first respondent and colour scheme for the building; 6. The first respondent was not regular in effecting payments for the works done and for 11 bills there was a delay of 21 months. 7. Because of the above lapses attributable to the first respondent, the petitioner suffered monitory losses for unnecessarily keeping his men and materials idle and therefore the first respondent was bound to compensate the petitioner; 8. The first respondent did not settle the rates for supplemental works and also failed to record the measurements for the works done. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the claim statement containing the following claims: Table 6. The first respondent filed a counter statement denying the allegations and in fact, they claimed a counter claim of Rs.26,79,600/-. 7. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence adduced, the second respondent/Arbitrator framed the following issues namely: 1. Whether the respondent has committed default in performing his part of the contract for all or any of the reasons stated in the claim and reply statements, which necessitated the extension and prolongation of the period of contract? 2. Whether the claimant has caused any undue and unnecessary delay or default in the execution of the contract within the time allotted to him as contended by the respondent in his counter statement and also in the counter claim? 3. Whether the respondent has failed to take decisions promptly in respect of the materials used and the rates therefore? 4. Whether there was any undue and unnecessary delay on the part of the respondent in effecting payments which included the mobilisation advance of Rs.20 lakhs (twenty lakhs) and also part rates? .5. Whether the claimant is entitled to an Award as prayed for in the Claim statement or .to what extent? 6. Whether the respondent is entitled to counter claim as prayed for? 8. .5. Whether the claimant is entitled to an Award as prayed for in the Claim statement or .to what extent? 6. Whether the respondent is entitled to counter claim as prayed for? 8. No oral evidence was let in on either side and Exhibits P1 to P84 were marked on the side of the petitioner and Exhibits R1 to R52 were marked on the side of the first respondent herein. 9. After evaluating the evidence, the arbitral tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,70,881.00 with interest at 12% p.a. from 30.11.1996 to 29.09.1999 and thereafter till the date of payment at 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount, the claimants who filed the claim statement before the second respondent/Arbitrator, filed the above petition under Sec.34 of the Act 1996. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. I have also gone through the entire materials including the award under challenge. 11. As already referred to, the second respondent/ Arbitrator framed six issues and issues 1 to 4 were tried together on the basis of the evidence adduced before him, the second respondent/Arbitrator decided all the four issues against the petitioner and in favour of the first respondent. .12. A perusal of the findings given by the second respondent/Arbitrator for the above said issues will make it very clear that the same was rendered after evaluating the entire evidence adduced before him and I hardly find any ground to interfere with the same under Sec.34 of the Act 1996. Issue No.5 was decided by the Arbitrator by holding that the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs.2,03,724/- on item No.1 with regard to the withholding amount of 2½% on the contract value under the final bill, a sum of Rs.17,707/- on item No.3 which relates to rates not released, a sum of Rs.12,400/- on item No.7 for plastering the folded plates, a sum of Rs.56,840/- on item No.10 for difference in cost of cement and further a sum of Rs.80,210/- on item No.11 which is relating to supplemental rate for centering and due to differences in height centering, above 3.3 meters. Thus, the second respondent/Arbitrator went on to grant a sum of Rs.3,70,881/- to the petitioner herein with interest at 12% per annum from 30.11.1996 to 29. 1999 and thereafter 9% for the future period. Thus, the second respondent/Arbitrator went on to grant a sum of Rs.3,70,881/- to the petitioner herein with interest at 12% per annum from 30.11.1996 to 29. 1999 and thereafter 9% for the future period. In so far as the counter claims are concerned the same were negatived and disallowed by the second respondent/Arbitrator. 13. A perusal of the entire award will make it very clear that the same is a reasoned one, passed on the basis of the entire evidence adduced before it and in such circumstances, I do not find any of the grounds that are set out under Sec.34 of the Act 1996 to interfere with the same. Since I do not find any grounds to interfere with the same under Sec.34 of the Act, 1996, I have not referred to any of the judgments referred to by both the learned counsel since the challenge made by the petitioner to the award could be decided without referring to any of those judgments. 14. In the result, the Original petition is dismissed. No costs. The award under challenge is upheld.