JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short Act) has been filed against the judgment/order dated 8th Sept., 2006 of District Judge, Jaipur city, Jaipur whereby the objections filed by the appellant under section 34 of the Act were summarily rejected and award dated 31.7.1998 passed by the Arbitrator was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that after issuing tender notice and subsequent correspondence, a work order dated 31.5.1996 was placed by the appellant company to the respondent No.1. In terms of the said work order, first class shoria robusta salwood N.G. Sleepers of the size 5'x6'x41/2 as per railway standard were to be supplied. The quantity was 1800 Nos. Rs. 225 each and order value was Rs. 4,05,000/-. The work order was to be executed FOR Sambhar Lake and the payment terms provided that full payment would be made within eight days after receipt, inspection and acceptance of the material at the stores of the appellant company. In pursuance to the purchase order so placed the goo is were supplied but dispute arose that the quality of the goods supplied was partly not in accordance with the specifications. Resultantly the, arbitration clause between the appellant company and the respondent No.1 incorporated in the purchase order dated 31.5.1996 was invoked and the dispute came to be referred to the sole Arbitrator Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) Shri Pana Chand Jain. The learned Arbitrator came to a finding that only 164 sleepers could be said to be below specifications and, therefore deserved to be rejected. According to the Arbitrator, payment of remainder of the sleepers were to be paid for and an award of Rs. 2,58,555.25 came to be passed being the purported remainder price for the sleepers supplied. The operative portion of the order of the Arbitrator reads as under: "In view of the fact that there is no agreement for payment of any interest and further in view of the fact that 1836 number of sleepers supply has been held to be as per the specifications only on technical ground that evidence adduced is lacking in material particulars in technical date, ass such, I do not deem it proper and reasonable to award interest to the claimant on the amount of Rs. 2,58,555.25. 2,58,555.25. However, the claimant shall be entitled to claim pendente lite and future interest @ 18% interest p.a. On the earnest money of Rs. 13,500 till payment w. e . f . 24.12.97 the date of presentation of petition for arbitration. Further I direct that said sum of Rs. 2,58,555.25 be paid within a period of two months from the date of Award, failing whereof the claimant shall be entitled to claim pendente lite interest @ 18% per annum with effect form 21.4.98 viz. the first date of hearing of arbitration proceedings. "C" forms, if not given, shall be given by the respondent. The parties are. to bear their own costs. 3. Dissatisfied with the award dated 31.7.1998 passed by the sole Arbitrator, the appellant company filed objection under section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the DJ Jaipur city. the first date of hearing of arbitration proceedings. "C" forms, if not given, shall be given by the respondent. The parties are. to bear their own costs. 3. Dissatisfied with the award dated 31.7.1998 passed by the sole Arbitrator, the appellant company filed objection under section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the DJ Jaipur city. The DJ after considering the award; and the objections raised by the appellant company made the award of the Arbitrator as rule of the court and rejected the objections raised by the appellant company observing as under: " nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; dk ewY;kadu dj fo}ku iap egksn; us ;g ik;k fd vCnqy lRrkj] Jh oh0ds0 'kekZ] Jh ,e0ds0 dksfV;k us LyhilZ dks fMQsfDVo crk;k] LyhilZ esa Nsn vkSj njkjsa Fkha] muesa ,d bap ls rhu bap rd ds Nsn Fks] muesa 4 ls 18 bap rd dh xqfYy;ka yxh gqbZ Fkh] dqN lMs+ xys Fks vkSj LyhilZ vkbZ0,l0vkbZ0 ds Lrj ls fuEu Js.kh ds FksA fo}ku iap egksn; us ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k gS fd mDr xokgksa }kjk tks fyf[kr esa fjiksVZ nh xbZ mlesa ,slk dksbZ gokyk ugha gS] blfy, ekSf[kd lk{; dks nLrkosth lk{; dh jks'kuh esa mUgksaus lgh ugha ekuk vkSj bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaps fd dfFk LyhilZ esa crk;s x;s fMQsfDVo LyhilZ esa crk;s x;s fMQsfDVo LyhilZ ijehflcy fMQsDV~l ds Js.kh esa vkrs gSaA fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ us ;g vkifRr mBkbZ gS fd iap egksn; us izkFkhZ dh izkFkZUk ds ckotwn Lo;a us LyhilZ dk fujh{k.k ugha fd;kA esjh jk; esa iap egksn; ds fy, ;g fujh{k.k djuk vko';d Hkh ugha FkkA muds }kjk nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ds i'pkr~ fu.kZ; nsuk FkkA ;fn buesa dksbZ dfBukbZ vkrh rks og fujh{k.k dj ldrs Fks] ysfdu ek= LyhilZ dk fujh{k.k ugha djus ls vokMZ dks nks"kiw.kZ ugha ekuk tk ldrkA blh izdkj nwljh eq[; vkifRr ;g mBkbZ xbZ gS fd tks lcwr Hkkj vizkFkhZ ij Fkk] og izkFkhZ ij f'kQV dj fn;k x;kA LyhilZ yksM djus ls igys izkFkhZ i{k ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ds ny ls LyhilZ dk fujh{k.k fd;k Fkk vkSj rRi'pkr~ izkFkhZ ds lkaHkj fLFkr xksnke esa Hkh mudk fujh{k.k fd;k x;k Fkk fdUrq fujh{k.k uksV esa mijksDr lHkh fMQsDV~l dk dksbZ gokyk ugha fn;kA nksuksa i{kksa dks lk{; ds i'pkr~ tks LyhilZ fMQsDVo ugha ik;s x;s mudh fdet fnykus dk iap egksn; us vokMZ esa vkns'k fn;k gS rFkk tks LyhilZ ijehlhcy fMQsDV dh Js.kh esa Fksa] mudh dher fnykus dk vkns'k fn;k gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgs gSa fd iap egksn; us fdl izdkj nLrkosth lk{; dk lgh izdkj ewY;kadu ugha fd;kA iap egksn; us nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; dk ;qfDr;qDr ewY;kadu dj ;g vokMZ ikfjr fd;k gS] ftls ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ;g bafM;u ifCyd ikfylh ds f[kykQ gS vFkok fdlh ykyp ;k ncko ls izsfjr gksdj fn;k x;k gSA esjh fouez jk; esa fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ bl vokMZ dks vikLr djus gsrq dksbZ ch ;qfDr;qDr vk/kkj izdV ugha dj ik;s gSaA vr% izkFkhZ dk ;g izkFkZuki= vLohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSaA vr% izkFkhZ dk ;g izkFkZuki= vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA " 4. Against the order dated 8th Sept. 2006, of the DJ Jaipur City the appellant company has preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. Rajendra Arora, learned counsel for the appellant company has contended that the learned DJ has Ignored the factual report of the three officials of the appellant company wherein they have stated that the sleepers supplied by respondent No.1 were not as per the ISI specifications. He has further contended that the affidavit and statements on behalf of the appellant company have been ignored by the sole Arbitrator as well as by the learned DJ. Moreover the findings of the learned DJ with regard to the fact that the goods supplied by the respondent No.1 were within the permissible limit is without any evidence and substance. He has further contended that the appellant company has raised submission before the Arbitrator to visit site and inspect the defective sleepers. By not visiting the site, the Arbitrator failed to appreciate the physical evidence and therefore there was miscarriage of justice and the learned dJ has erred in agreeing with the findings of the Arbitrator. He has further contended that the Arbitrator has also failed to consider the material available on record while deciding the issue on merit. The appellant had written letters dated 13.11.1996, and 5.12.1996 to the supplier to replace the defective sleepers which was not cone, despite the fact that the supplier was bound to replace the defective sleepers as per the guarantee given by him. He has further contended that the interest awarded at the rate of 18 per cent by the Arbitrator and the DJ is not justified, it should be reduced from 18 per cent to 9 per cent, if the court is not interfering with the award dated 13.7.1998 and the order dated 8.9.2006 passes by the DJ making the award rule of the court. For that purpose he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra Reddy and another, (2007) 2 5CC 720 . 6. The learned counsel lastly contended that the award of the arbitrator and the judgment and order of the DJ should be set aside. 7. On the other hand Mr. 6. The learned counsel lastly contended that the award of the arbitrator and the judgment and order of the DJ should be set aside. 7. On the other hand Mr. Ajit Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has contended that the arbitrator has passed the award after recording and appreciating the statements of the witnesses and the documents relied on by the parties and no illegality or misconduct has been committed by the arbitrator. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant company has not been able to point out any misconduct committed by the arbitrator so as to set aside the award. The judgment and order confirming the award and quashing the objections of the appellant company is just and proper and it is not called for any interference by this court in appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in support of his submission cited the case of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and another v. Ferro Concrete Construction Private Limited, (2009) 12 SCC 1 , According to the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, the award of interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum, is just and proper. For that purpose he has placed reliance on Syeed Ahmed and company v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 12 SCC 26 . 8. The Apex Court in the case of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. (supra) held as under: "11. On the merits of the claims made by the contractor we find from the impugned award dated 25-6-2000 that it contains several heads. The arbitrator has meticulously examined the claims of the contractor under each separate head. We do not see any reason to interfere except on the rates of interest and on the quantum awarded for letting machines of the contractor remaining idle for the periods mentioned in the award. Here also we may add that we do not wish to interfere with the award except to say that after economic reforms in our country the interest regime has changed and the rates have substantially reduced and, therefore, we, are of the view that the interest awarded by the arbitrator at 18% for the pre-arbitration period, for the pendente lite period and future interest be reduced to 9%." 9. The Apex Court in Ferro Concrete Construction (supra) in paras 18, 20, 68,69 and 72 held as under: "18. The Apex Court in Ferro Concrete Construction (supra) in paras 18, 20, 68,69 and 72 held as under: "18. Section 30 of the Act inter alia provides that an award can be set aside on the ground that an arbitrator had misconducted himself or the proceedings, or that the award had been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. An error apparent on the face of the award, is a ground tor setting aside the award under section 30 or for remitting the award to the arbitrator under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Act. 20. It was well settled that under the Arbitration Act, 1940, an award was not open to challenge on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or failed to appreciate facts. as under the law, the arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties. While considering the challenge to an award. the Court will not sit in appeal over the award nor re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of finding whether on the facts and circumstances. the award in question could have been made. When there is no allegation of moral misconduct against the arbitrator with reference to the award, and where the arbitration has not been superseded, there were only two grounds of attack. First was that there was legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator in making the award. Second was that there was an error apparent on the face of the award. 68. Claims 9 and 19, 27 and 28, 29, 33, 35 (with 25 and 35) are for payment for the work done by the contractor. Claims 2 and 16, 3 and 15, 5 and 18, 24 30, 31 and 32 are for release/refund of amounts withheld or excess deductions. Claims 6 and 17 are for escalation in prices. Claims 11 and 20 are for compensation for slow progress due to reduction of width of trench. The arbitrator has awarded certain amounts against these claims by examining the material placed before him and the terms of contract. He has also assigned reasons for awarding the amount against these claims. Courts cannot sit in judgment over the award of the arbitrator, nor re-appreciate the evidence. 69. The arbitrator has awarded certain amounts against these claims by examining the material placed before him and the terms of contract. He has also assigned reasons for awarding the amount against these claims. Courts cannot sit in judgment over the award of the arbitrator, nor re-appreciate the evidence. 69. The awards on these claims do not suffer from any infirmity which can be the basis for interference either under section 30 or under section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Neither want of jurisdiction, nor legal misconduct, nor any inconsistency nor error apparent on the face of the award are made out in regard to awards made in regard to these claims. The awards in regard to these claims are therefore upheld. 72. Counterclaims 1, 2 and 4 have been considered by the arbitrator and rejected by the arbitrator on the ground that the delays/breaches were on the part of the appellant and therefore, the question of claiming these amounts does not arise. Rejection of counterclaim 5 is consequential. As noticed above, the court does not sit in appeal over the award of the arbitrator and cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion. The award on these items does not attract any of the grounds on which the award could be set aside. Therefore, rejection of these claims is also not open to interference." 10. As per Section 30 of the Act an award can be set aside on the ground that an arbitrator had misconducted himself or the proceedings, or that the award had been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. An error apparent on the face of the award, is a ground for setting aside the award under Section 30 or for remitting the award to the arbitrator under Section 16(1) (c) of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any point pointing towards the misconduct of the Arbitrator in passing the award. Under the Arbitration Act, 1940, an award was not open to challenge on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or failed to appreciate facts, as under the law, the arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties. Under the Arbitration Act, 1940, an award was not open to challenge on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or failed to appreciate facts, as under the law, the arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties. While considering the challenge to an award, the court will not sit in appeal over the award nor re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of finding whether on the facts and circumstances, the award in question could have been made. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant company in these circumstances cannot be considered. The Arbitrator has already considered the rejection of 77 number of sleepers to be valid and 84 sleepers were in decayed condition with cracks and cavities. The Arbitrator in these circumstances held 164 sleepers not as per the specifications and validly rejected 164 sleepers and found that the 1836 sleepers were as per the specifications. This finding of the Arbitrator based on evidence and documents does not call for any interference and the learned DJ also found the findings of the Arbitrator just and proper. 11. The legislature while enacting the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Incorporated a specific provision in regard to award of interest by arbitrators. Sub-section (7) of Section 31 of The Act deals with the arbitrator's power to award interest. Clause (a) relates to the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made. Clause (b) relates to the period from the date of award to date of payment. The said sub-section (7) is extracted below: "31. (7)(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, where and insofar as an arbitral award is for the payment of money, the Arbitral Tribunal may include in the sum for which the award is made interest, at such rate as it deems reasonable, on the whole or any part of the money, for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made. (b) A sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall, unless the award otherwise directs, carry interest at the rate of eighteen per centum per annum from the date of the award to the date of payment." 12. (b) A sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall, unless the award otherwise directs, carry interest at the rate of eighteen per centum per annum from the date of the award to the date of payment." 12. In Syeed Ahmed and Company v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , (Supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under: 25. The arbitrator awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs. 24,18,586, 14% per annum on the amount found due on finalisation of the final bill and 12% per annum on the security deposit amount if any that has to be refunded. As noticed above, Clause (b) of sub-section (7) of Section 31 of the Act provides that if the award does not otherwise direct, the amount awarded shall carry interest as directed by the award and in the absence of any provision of 18% per annum. Any provision in the contract barring interest, will therefore operate only till the date of award and not thereafter. 26. The arbitrator has awarded interest at three different rates on three different amounts which are all less than 18% per annum. The said award of interest by the arbitrator is not contrary to Section 31 (7) (b) of the Act. Unless the award of interest is found to be unwarranted for reasons to be recorded, the Court should not alter the rate of interest awarded by the arbitrator. The High Court has not assigned any reasons for reducing the rate of interest to 6% per annum. Therefore, such reduction cannot be sustained. 27. In view of the above, we allow this appeal in part and modify the judgment of the High court as fellows: (a) The judgment of the High Court setting aside the award of interest up to the date of award is affirmed. (b) The decision of the High Court reducing the rate of interest to 6% per annum from the/date of award is set aside. The rate of interest on the amounts due and payable under the award, from the date of award till the date of payment shall be in terms of the award of the arbitrator. (c) Parties to bear their respective costs." 13. The rate of interest on the amounts due and payable under the award, from the date of award till the date of payment shall be in terms of the award of the arbitrator. (c) Parties to bear their respective costs." 13. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and considering the award passed by the Arbitrator and the judgment and order of the DJ Jaipur City Jaipur dated 8.9.2008 and judgments of the Apex Court quoted above, in my view the award passed by the Arbitrator and the judgment and order of the District Judge rejecting the objections of the Appellant company and making the award of the Arbitrator Rule of Court, do not call for any interference and the appeal stands rejected. However in the interest of justice I reduce the interest awarded by the Arbitrator from 18 per cent per annum to 15 per cent per annum. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs. *******