An arbitrator does not exceed his jurisdiction or misconduct himself by considering issues that are within the scope of the arbitration agreement and by giving detailed reasons for his findings, even if the court might have arrived at a different conclusion.

( 1 ) THE Court : This is an application under section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the award dated 30. 4. 97 passed by the sole arbitrator.

( 2 ) THE basic points as taken by the petitioner is that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction and misconducted in making award. The award is a speaking award.

( 3 ) I have gone through the award and I find that the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,79,160. 08p. along with interest and cost in favour of the respondents/award holder out of the total claim of Rs. 39,31,313. 46p.

( 4 ) THREE parts of the claim as raised by the respondents/award holder was allowed as follows :- (A)work was delayed due to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the award holder is entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 70,808. 08p. (B)on account of idle labour, the respondents/award holder was allowed a sum of Rs. 1,05,003/ -. (C)on account of the increasement of the contractual period an award was granted in favour of the respondents/award holder for a sum of Rs. 4,73,552/ -. (D)on account of putting guards etc. for the period of May and June, 1990 for a sum of Rs. 13,800/ -. (E)on account of compensation of delay to sums were awarded i. e. Rs. 76,000/- and Rs. 2,04,000/ -. In this way, the amount was awarded.

( 5 ) IT is well-known principle that in hearing the application under section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, Court cannot sit over it as an appeal Court to enquire as to the question of the reasonableness. Therefore, the only question the Court can look as to whether the award is bad from the face of it or not. Therefore, the substantial question herein is that whether arbitrator is really exceeded the jurisdiction or misconducted himself in awarding the sum as agitated by the petitioner and as to whether the same is falling under the parameter of award is bad from the face of it or not.

( 6 ) THE crux of the case of Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is two-fold. Firstly, erroneous appreciation of facts goes to the root of misconduct. Secondly, inference with regard to issue No. 1 is erroneous. Further the question of idle labour or supply of materials along with the question of inference with regard to Issue No. 1.

( 7 ) IF I go through the basic submissions, it will be categorically understood all questions are related to appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case which is not the domain of the Court in hearing the application under section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

( 8 ) FACTUAL appreciation was made by the arbitrator i. e. chosen forum in between the parties themselves. All points were open before him and were discussed. Now when one party has lost the battle and invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to achieve the goal in the nature of appeal, the same cannot be encouragable by the Court. The Court is only concerned about the domain of the Arbitrator. If the same is correct and if all the questions were agitated before him and decided serially as appeared herein, there is no scope of the petitioner to re-agitate the same before the Court of law.

( 9 ) MR. Ghosh has submitted that erroneous appreciation of facts goes to misconduct. But I do believe that erroneous appreciation of facts by the Court in this nature of application will lead to a negative end of the positive prayer of the failed party. The word 'misconduct' has a very wide connotation. But the same has to be understood by the Court in the proper perspective. This is not a case where Court will go into such question of misconduct for the sake of the availability of the question of law.

( 10 ) FACTUALLY, the petitioner has made out a case by saying that although there was delay in completion of work by more than 27 months, the respondent did not make any claim for compensation from the respondent herein. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for delay, if any, on the