Judgment :- (P. JYOTHIMANI, J.) 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Judge in dismissing the petition filed by the Government against the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of challenging the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 2. As per the agreement entered into between the parties, which relates to construction of four bridges along with the design and approaches in Tiruvannamalai District and the contract was dated 17.3.1999 for a total cost of Rs.12,83,00,000/-. As per the terms of contract, the period of contract was 18 months viz. between 1.4.1999 and 1.8.2000. But the bridge works were not completed within the stipulated period. On 31.7.2001, excepting the bridge work at Km 6/6 of Polur – Jamunamaruthur – Alagayam Road, which was completed on 18.1.2001, all other works were completed. The period of extension was granted by the appellant without any protest. 3. Due to non settlement of bills, the Contractor, as per the terms of the contract, raised a dispute and the same was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with law. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Contractor has made various claims, which are as follows:- 4. The Arbitral Tribunal has taken up each and every one of the claim. In respect of Claim No.I, which is the difference in cost due to increased thickness of raft, it is seen that originally it was agreed that the thickness of raft shall be at 0.75 meters and subsequently, it was increased to 1.40 meters and was admittedly not opposed by the appellant and it is in respect of raft construction from 0.75 meters to 1.40 meters, the difference in cost has been claimed by the Contractor on the ground that while the work was carried out, it was found to be unsuccessful and therefore, a suggestion was made on the side of the appellant for the purpose of resorting to pile foundation, however, at the cost of the Contractor. 5. In the first claim, the Contractor has claimed an amount of Rs.81,00,000/-, which relates to increase of thickness of raft from 0.75 meters to 1.4 meters. The Arbitral Tribunal has found that the increase in raft foundation has been submitted by the Contractor, after consultation with the appellant-Government and in fact, it was recommended by the Engineer concerned and it was a finding of fact. The Arbitral Tribunal has found that the increase in raft foundation has been submitted by the Contractor, after consultation with the appellant-Government and in fact, it was recommended by the Engineer concerned and it was a finding of fact. The Arbitral Tribunal has accordingly awarded in respect of difference in cost to the extent of Rs.43,06,000/-. 6. Regarding the second claim in respect of the same construction of the bridge at Kalavai Valapandal Road, while dealing with the claim of escalation charges for works carried out during the extended period to the extent of Rs.7,48,172/-, the same was not opposed by the Contractor and therefore, it was withdrawn. 7. The third claim made in respect of the said bridge relating to overhead charges and loss of profit for works done during extended period at Rs.57,73,500/-, the Tribunal, while rejecting the claim regarding loss of profit, has allowed the overhead charges to the extent of Rs.13,66,436/-. For arriving at such conclusion, the Tribunal has relied upon various documents including the letter of the Superintending Engineer dated 2.8.2002 and the Tribunal, on fact, has also found that as per Clause 4.5.6.1(c) of agreement, escalation for the extended period of contract cannot be paid to the contractor for reasons of delay attributable to the Contractor, whereas, on fact, it was found that the delay was on the part of the appellant even in handing over the site, since there has been land acquisition proceedings. In our view, it was correctly taken note of by the Tribunal and accordingly, granted a sum of Rs.13,66,436/-as against the claim of Rs.57,73,500/- by rejecting the claim regarding loss of profit. 8. In respect of the same bridge, an amount of Rs.3,39,006/-claimed by the claimant on the head of amounts withheld in final bill for want of sanction and amount withheld for repairs to be done on approaches to be released, the Tribunal, on factual aspect, has come to the conclusion and granted an amount of Rs.2,35,556/-. 9. In respect of second bridge of reconstruction on Polur Jamunamaruthur road, the escalation charges claimed for the works done during the extended period from 16.10.99 to 31.8.2001 at Rs.4,68,400/-has been subsequently withdrawn by the Contractor. Secondly, regarding overheads and loss of profits for the works done during the extended period, the claimant made a claim of Rs.60,48,428/-. 9. In respect of second bridge of reconstruction on Polur Jamunamaruthur road, the escalation charges claimed for the works done during the extended period from 16.10.99 to 31.8.2001 at Rs.4,68,400/-has been subsequently withdrawn by the Contractor. Secondly, regarding overheads and loss of profits for the works done during the extended period, the claimant made a claim of Rs.60,48,428/-. While rejecting the loss of profit as it was in respect of other bridge, the Arbitral Tribunal, by referring to various documents, has quantified the amount regarding overhead charges at Rs.17,53,011/-. 10. Again, in respect of same bridge, the claim of Rs.14,25,634/-, made by the claimant towards releasing of amounts withheld in final bill, is withdrawn by him. In respect of last and third bridge at KM 19/6-10 of Kancheepuram Vandavasi Road, the claim of Rs.2,65,178/- made by the claimant on the ground of amount withheld towards approaches to be released after defects liability period, the Tribunal has found that the defects have been rectified and granted a sum of Rs.2,65,178/-along with interest of Rs.15,026/- and ultimately, as against the total claim of Rs.2,31,58,318/-, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.79,41,207/-. In addition to that, as per the terms of contract, the Arbitral Tribunal has granted interest in respect of item Nos.1 and 4 regarding the first bridge to the extent of Rs.28,65,355/-from the date of final bill till the date of award. In addition to that, the respondent's share of arbitration fees to be paid to the claimant was quantified at Rs.2,86,576/- and total award amount of Rs.1,10,93,138/- came to be passed as against the claim made by the claimant to the extent of Rs.2,31,58,318/-. 11. In our view, learned Judge has considered the factual aspects, which were considered by the Arbitral Tribunal and found that insofar as escalation is concerned, when once the Arbitral Tribunal has come to the conclusion on factual matrix, it is not for the Court, while exercising the powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to go into the merits of the findings. In addition to the aforesaid finding given by the learned Judge, which we totally agree, we are of the view that once the Arbitral Tribunal has taken up each one of the heads made by the Contractor and decided on the basis of merit and factual aspect, it is not for this Court, while exercising the power under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to act as an appellate Authority tore-appreciate the evidence. 12. In such view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge. Accordingly, the Original Side Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed. No costs.