SAT PAL, J.(Oral) - (1.)IN this case M/s. R.K. & Co. (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) has filed this petition under Section 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for filing of the original award dated 20th December, 1985 alongwith documents and making it rule of the Court. Notice of the filing of the award was issued to the petitioner as well as to the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the D.D.A.). Objections have been filed on behalf of the D.D.A. vide IANo.2892/86 under Section 30 and 33 of the Act which were controverted by the petitioner. The following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the Arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings? 2. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds taken up in the objections? 3. Whether the award is not liable to be made a rule of the Court? 4. Relief.

(2.).The parties were allowed to file evidence by way of affidavits. Affidavits have been filed in support and opposition to the objections. It may be pointed out here that the objections filed by the D.D.A. are only with regard to claims No.3,4 and 5 (a) and counter claims No. 1 to 5.
.Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the D.D.A. submitted that the award of the learned Arbitrator in respect of the claims and counter claims mentioned hereinabove is wholly bad and perverse. With regard to claim No.3 he submitted that the learned Arbitrator had not considered that the contractor had failed to Comply with the requirement of Clause X(C) and as such the Contractor was not entitled to any amount under this claim. With regard to claim No.4 he submitted that it was not open to the learned Arbitrator to award any amount in respect of any theft/loss which might have occured while goods were in the custody of the claimants. With regard to claim 5(a), he submitted that the award in respect of this claim was perverse. As regards the counter claims, the learned counsel submitted that learned Arbitrator has rejected all the counter claims on wholly erroneous and extreaneous grounds.

.Mr. Lakhanpal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Contractor drew my attention to the relevant portion from the award and submitted that in respect of all the claims and counter claims the learned Arbitrator has given valid reasons and once the reasons are found to be germane and relevant, this Court cannot sit in appeal on those reasons. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on two judgements of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Coimbatore District Podu Thozillar Samgam VS. Bala Subramania Foundry, AIR 1987 SC 2045 and Gujrat Water Supply & Sewerage Board VS. Unique Erectors (Gujrat)(P) Ltd., AIR 1989 SC 973. The learned counsel further submitted that the contractor was also enticed to interest from the date of award till realisation in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujrat Water Supply & Sewerage Board (supra).

.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. From the award, I find that the reasons given by the learned Arbitrator are germane and valid reasons. Besides I have informed by the learned counsel for the parties that the learned arbitrator at the relevant time was Director Material Management and at present is working as Chief Engineer with the Respondent-D.D.A. He was, therefore, an expert person in respect of the disputes involved in this case. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Coimbatore District Podu ThozillarSamgam(supra) that an award could only be set aside where there is an error on its face. I do not find any error on the face of the award. I, therefore, do not find any merit in any of the objections raised by the D.D.A. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.

.Since the objections contained in IA 2892/86 have been dismissed as stated hereinabove, the award is made rule of the Court. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujrat Water Supply & Sewerage Board (supra) the contractor is also entitled to interest. Accordingly, I direct that the contractor will be entitled to interest @ 12%p.a.fromthedate of the award till realisation of the amount. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. The decree may be drawn accordingly. The award will form a part of the decree. With this order suit and IA stand disposed of.