IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 406 of 2006 State of Uttaranchal & another … Appellants Versus Laxman Singh … Respondent Sri P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel for appellants Sri V.K. Kohli, senior Advocate, assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, Advocate, for respondent Dated: May 13, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.6.2001 passed by District Judge, Dehradun in Case No. 80/2001, State of Uttaranchal vs. Laxman Singh- Contractor, by which the objection of appellant/State filed against the award dated 21.12.2005 was rejected. Brief facts of the case are that an agreement No. 2/SE/88-89 was executed between the parties appointing Sri M.P. Bhartari Superintending Engineer as Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties regarding construction of buildings of Balika Inter College Dakpathar. The Arbitrator after concluding the arbitration proceedings passed the award dated 15.6.2001 and sent the same to the District Judge. The State has filed objection against the award. The learned District Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the objection 2 raised by the State and perusing the award, dismissed the objection vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 15.6.2001 and award dated 21.12.2005, the appellants have preferred the appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, before this Court. Heard Sri P.C. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for appellants, Sri V.K. Kohli, senior Advocate, assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, Advocate, for respondent and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the payment as per the award has to be made in accordance with measurement in sq. meter while it should be in cubic meter as per the terms of agreement. He also submitted that the interest has been awarded on higher rate and the Arbitrator has misconducted himself in giving the award beyond the specific terms of contract agreement. However, Sri V.K. Kohli, senior Advocate, learned counsel for respondent has opposed the submission raised by learned counsel for appellants and alleged that the quoted rates of tender were in sq. meter, negotiation also took place and the rates were revised by the Department in sq. meter. Thereafter, the agreement was also executed in which the rates were mentioned in sq. meter, therefore, there is no illegality in the award in which 3 the payments were directed to be made in accordance with measurement in sq. meter. After having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any force in the submission raised by learned counsel for the appellants. It is important to note here that the quoted rates of tender were in sq. meter, negotiation also took place and the rates were revised by the Department in sq. meter. Thereafter, the agreement was also executed in which the rates were mentioned in sq. meter, therefore, there is no illegality in the award in which the payments were directed to be made in accordance with measurement in sq. meter. So far as interest is concerned, the Arbitrator has awarded interest at the rate of 14% per annum upto the date of award and thereafter at the rate of 9% upto the payment. Here it would be relevant to mention that in the new Act the interest can be awarded upto 18%. The Arbitrator has awarded the interest at the rate prevailing at the relevant period and therefore the finding in respect of the interest cannot be disturbed in this appeal. The learned Arbitrator has recorded finding of fact after considering the evidence and has given the award. This Court cannot look into the mental process of the Arbitrator and speculate as to what impelled the Arbitrator to arrive at his conclusion as mentioned in the award. It is a settled principle of law that the Court cannot sit over the award as an appellate court in order to assess and examine the evidence on record. 4 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 15.6.2001 passed by District Judge rejecting the objection of the appellant/State against the award dated 21.12.2005, is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP