MONORANJAN MALLICK, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application u/s. 30 of the Arbitration Act filed by S. Pal and Company, a registered partnership firm praying for setting aside the award dated 9/05/1988 made by Sri A. Venkataratnam. ( 2 ) THE facts may be briefly stated as follows : the petitioner is one of the leading Organisers of the State Lotteries. It is also the Sole Selling Agent of quite a number of State Lotteries organised by different State Governments. ( 3 ) IN response to an invitation to tender, published by the first respondent, the petitioner submitted an offer to act as the Sole-selling agent of the Goa Government in organising lotteries on All India basis except in the territory of Goa Daman and Diu. The offer was accepted and an agreement has been entered into between the parties on 15/02/1985 which was subsequently amended and/or modified by the two addenda dated 1/11/1985 and 14/02/1986. Pursuant to the said agreement and the addenda the petitioner had organised lotteries on behalf of the Goa Government, all over India except in the territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. The term of the aforesaid agreement and addenda expired on 17-6-86. During the aforesaid period, the respondent had released lottery tickets, worth Rs. 9. 94 crores and Rs. 4. 47 crored aggregating Rs. 14. 41 crores, and has made payment of a sum of Rs. 1,71,94,700. 00 as profit on the basis of agreed rate for a total turn over of Rs. 14. 41 crores in terms of the agreements. ( 4 ) IN or about 10/10/1986 the Director of the First Respondent for the first time alleged that the petitioner has the liability to make a payment for a sum of Rs. 53,80,300. 00 on account of alleged shortfall of profit on the alleged fixed turn over of Rs. 15 crores. There arose disputes regarding the liability under the contract and as such the petitioner had to file a Special Suit No. 44 of 1987 in the High Court at Calcutta to prevent the first respondent from illegal enforcement of Bank guarantee provided by the petitioner in terms of the agreement. In that Special Suit an order of settlement was filed on 21-12-1987. Pursuant to the said term of settlement, the Director of the Respondent No. 1 appointed Mr. In that Special Suit an order of settlement was filed on 21-12-1987. Pursuant to the said term of settlement, the Director of the Respondent No. 1 appointed Mr. A. Vankataratram, the Managing Director of Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd. Panaji Goa the sole arbitrator who entered into a reference on 21-1-1988. ( 5 ) THE learned Arbitrator during the proceeding, according to the petitioner, showed his bias in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner which the petitioner has set out in the various paragraphs of the petition and also prevented the petitioner to produce and exhibit various documents and has thus, not only shut out the various relevant documents but also did not allow the petitioner's witness to produce the relevant documents which were necessary for proper adjudication of the case. ( 6 ) THE Arbitration proceeding continued from 4th to 10/05/1988 at Panaji Goa daily and even though the Arbitrator almost at every stage expressed his closed mind in. no uncertain terms often, yet, the petitioner even if wanted to file an application for removal of the Arbirator could not do so because the petitioner on reaching Calcutta on 14/05/1988 made ready such a petition for moving the application of removal of the Arbitrator prior to Summar Vacation of the High Court, Calcutta but on 19/05/1988 the local representative of the petitioner at Goa informed the petitioner by telephone that on 19/05/1988 the learned Arbitrator has made an award but refused to hand over the copy of the same to the representative of the petitioner. The petitioner on several occasions requested for the copy of the award but the learned Arbitrator expressed that unless the petitioner paid the sum of Rs. 11,000. 00 as cost of the Arbitrator and expenses no copy of the award would be given to the petitioner. But when Sri Pranab Pal, one of the partners of the petitioner went to Panaji Goa in the month of September, 1988 to obtain a copy of the award with the amount claimed by the Arbitrator yet on his arrival at Panaji Goa, he was informed that the Arbitrator had sent the award to the High Court, Calcutta for filing the same and the petitioner would get the copy from the office of the Registrar, Calcutta High Court. On enquiry from the office of the Registrar, Calcutta High Court, it was informed that the award was sent for adjudication to the Collector and only on 14/10/1988, a copy of the notice under Section 14 (2) had been served on the petitioner when the High Court had already been closed for Puja Vacation. ( 7 ) IN the facts and circumstances, the learned Advocate on record of the petitioner made inspection of the said record on 14-10-1988 at the office of the Registrar, High Court, Calcutta and on that basis this application has been moved without knowing the full contents of the award. ( 8 ) THE petitioner therefore challenges this award as the arbitrator misconducted the Arbitration proceeding and was whereby guilty of legal misconduct, inter alia, for the following reasons :i) The learned Arbitrator did not allow the petitioner's Counsel to cross-examine properly and/or fully and/or effectively the witnesses of the first respondent. ii) The learned Arbitrator failed in his duties to direct production of the most material and vital documents called for on behalf of the petitioner, nor did he allow the petitioner to produce certain important documents. iii) The learned Arbitrator purported to make his award without considering the vital and important documents the production whereof by the first respondent was asked for on behalf of the petitioner. iv) The purported award is also bad and perverse and there is error of law apparent on the face of the award in as much as the said award is, based on the theory of "dead rent" which was no body's case in the pleadings and particularly when the dispute between the parties was as to whether 'profit' or 'royalty' was payable by the petitioner to the first respondent under the agreement. v) The purported award is bad and perverse as it is based not on evidence but on conjectures and extranueous consideration. vi) The learned Arbitrator is also guilty of misconduct in as much as after closing the arbitration proceeding on 10/05/1988 he asked for further documents and information and pursuant to such requirements the first respondent filed certain documents and informations when the learned Arbitrator had not given any liberty to the petitioner to be heard in explaining those documents and informations. On receipt of the copies of the documents filed by the first respondent with the learned Arbitrator after the proceedings were closed when the petitioner recorded by its letter dated 17/05/1988 its objection thereto and pointed out that in any event other documents and evidence necessary to explain the situation and chains of events which resulted in the preparation of addemdum, the learned Arbitrator just gave a noting on the body of the said letter that the award had already been passed and he was functus officio and the said application could not be taken on record. vii) The arbitrator had shown positive bias in favour of the Respondent No. 1 in conducting the proceeding and in obstructing the petitioner in leading proper evidence. ( 9 ) THE Respondent No. l filing an affidavit-in-opposition has contested the petition. ( 10 ) THE contention of the Respondent No. 1 may be briefly stated as follows : the petitioner from time to time requested for adjournments of the hearings on one pretext or the other with the sole intent and motive to delay and defeat the arbitration proceedings. The Arbitrator in refusing to grant adjournment to the petitioner exercised his own discretion, as will be evident from the order-sheets of the Arbitrator. He gave fullest opportunity to the petitioner to present his case and it is idle for him to pretend to the contrary. It is denied that the Arbitrator refused to grant adjournment to the petitioner at the instance of the first respondent, as fasely alleged or at all. On the prayer made in that behalf by the first respondent on the grounds stated in his letter dated 4/04/1988, the Arbitrator adjourned the sitting fixed by him on 11/04/1988 by his order-sheet till 25/04/1988 upon prior intimation by telegram to the parties. As the Arbitrator has re-fixed the sitting on 25/04/1988, it was not necessary for the first respondent to appear before him on 11/04/1988. The insinuation that the first respondent had approached the Arbitrator behind the back of the petitioner is uncalled for and unwarranted. As the Arbitrator has re-fixed the sitting on 25/04/1988, it was not necessary for the first respondent to appear before him on 11/04/1988. The insinuation that the first respondent had approached the Arbitrator behind the back of the petitioner is uncalled for and unwarranted. It is denied that no intimation was sent to the petitioner by the Arbitrator as alleged or at all and it will be evident from the said adjournment application of the petitioner, no cogent reason was given as to why the hearing was to be adjourned, as asked for by it till the end of the second week of May, 1988. However, in order to suit the convenience of the respective Counsel appearing for the parties, the Arbitrator re-fixed the hearing on and from 4/05/1988. It is absurd to allege that the Arbitrator fixed the date of hearing on 25/04/1988 at the instance of the first respondent or arbitrarily or for the alleged reason and the respondents deny the same. ( 11 ) THE Respondent states and submits that it will be evident from the trend of cross-examination of the said witnesses of the first respondent by and on behalf of the petitioner and the purported documents produced by the petitioner for the purposes of such cross-examination, the petitioner put irrelevant questions which did not have any bearing on the merits of the controversy between the petitioner and the first respondent, which was subject-matter of the reference before the Arbitrator. The petitioner has wrongfully and with mala fide intention and with an ulterior motive referred to such deposition on a selective basis. It is denied that the Arbitrator ever showed any biased attitude in favour of the first respondent or at any stage of the arbitration proceedings, as alleged or at all. It is denied that any of the witnesses of the first respondent did not disclose the truth or that they were given any protection or that the lawyer of the petitioner was prevented from cross-examination of the said witnesses on the basis of relevant and material documents as alleged or at all. It is denied that any suggestion was given by way of objection on behalf of the first respondent, as alleged or at all. It is denied that any suggestion was given by way of objection on behalf of the first respondent, as alleged or at all. It is denied that any adjustment was made by the first, respondent illegally or in the alleged circumstances, or that any of its witnesses was not allowed to bring out the truth, as alleged at all. It is denied that any of the objections raised on behalf of the first respondent by its counsel was frivolous, as alleged or at all. It is denied that the Arbitrator did not allow the petitioner's counsel to bring but the rights and obligations of the parties under the contract, as alleged or at all. It is absurd to allege that the first respondent failed to perform its obligations under the contract or that it acted in the alleged manner and the respondent deny the same. It is denied that the Arbitrator disallowed any pertinent question as alleged or at all. The Respondent denies and disputes that the purport or effect of the questions in cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner was as alleged. It is denied that the Arbitrator prevented the witness of the first respondent from revealing the truth as alleged or at all. ( 12 ) IT is denied that the Arbitrator prevented any relevant or pertinent documents produced by the petitioner from being exhibited, as alleged or at all. The Arbitrator in refusing to permit the petitioner to produce documents which were not relevant or pertinent acted fairly and properly and it is idle for the petitioner to pretend to the contrary. The Respondent states and as will be evident from the records of the arbitration proceedings, that the Arbitrator allowed full opportunity to the petitioner to present its case and further allowed it to produce all documents and to put such question in cross-examination of the witness of the first respondent as were material and relevant for the purpose of adjudicating upon the dispute referred to him. The Arbitrator, upon due consideration, properly rejected the application of the petitioner for a direction upon the first respondent to produce its file, which the petitioner was not entitled to see. It is denied that the Arbitrator shut out or did not allow the petitioner's witness to produce any relevant document as alleged or at all. The Arbitrator, upon due consideration, properly rejected the application of the petitioner for a direction upon the first respondent to produce its file, which the petitioner was not entitled to see. It is denied that the Arbitrator shut out or did not allow the petitioner's witness to produce any relevant document as alleged or at all. ( 13 ) IT is denied that the Arbitrator conducted the arbitration proceedings with a closed mind or that he showed any bias, as alleged or at all. The respondent denies that the actions of the Arbitrator were as alleged. It is denied that the Arbitrator was not in a position to take independent view of the matter, or that the Arbitrator did not act judiciously in making his Award or that his said Award could be or is "purported" as alleged or at all. The Respondent denies and disputes that the Arbitrator had any reason to save the second witness of the first respondent or for the alleged reason, as alleged or at all. The allegations concerning the said witness of the first respondent are wholly uncalled for and wholly irrelevant and the same are obviously calculated to cloud the issue, if possible. The Arbitrator in his said Award -has duly dealt with the said allegations. It is denied that the Arbitrator showed any biased attitude or that his independent judicial mind was in any way influenced, or that the Award made by him is perverse, as alleged or at all. It is denied that the Arbitrator did not allow the petitioner to put questions u cross-examination and to produce documents as were relevant and material, or that he accepted any of the documents produced by the first respondent behind the back of the petitioner or in the alleged circumstances or after the completion of the arbitration proceedings or that the petitioner did not get opportunity to explain any documents or to produce other documents which were relevant, as alleged or at all. The said allegations are vague and the same have been obviously concocted for the purpose of the present proceedings. ( 14 ) THE petitioner participated in the arbitration proceedings from May 4 to May 10, 1988 before the Arbitrator. The petitioner accepted the directions of the Arbitrator given from time to time during the arbitration proceedings. The said allegations are vague and the same have been obviously concocted for the purpose of the present proceedings. ( 14 ) THE petitioner participated in the arbitration proceedings from May 4 to May 10, 1988 before the Arbitrator. The petitioner accepted the directions of the Arbitrator given from time to time during the arbitration proceedings. The Arbitrator duly made, signed his Award on 19/05/1988 and forwarded the same to the Registrar, High Court of Calcutta on 15-6-1988. ( 15 ) SAVE what are matters of record and save that notice under S. 14 (2) has been duly served on the petitioner, the respondent has no knowledge of the allegations made in paragraph 18 of the said petition and the Respondent makes no admission with regard thereto. The Respondent denies and dispute that this application has been made by the petitioner without knowing the full contents of the Award, as alleged or at all. The said allegations are absurd and meaningless. The said Award has been duly and properly made by the Arbitrator after considering the respective submissions and contentions of the petition and the first respondents. Save as aforesaid and save what appears from the said Award, the respondent deny and dispute the allegations and/or contentions in the said paragraph. It is denied that the said award was not made on 19/05/1988, or that the Arbitrator made the same with a closed mind, or that he disregarded any facts or law, as alleged or at all. It is denied that the law or facts are as alleged. It is denied that the Arbitrator did not decide any point or that he had a biased mind or for the alleged reason, as alleged or at all. The Respondents deny and dispute that the purport or effect of the cases cited by the petitioner or the first respondent was as alleged. ( 16 ) THE Respondent states and as will be evident from the said Award, the Arbitrator has duly and properly considered the respective contentions and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the first respondent. The respondent states and submits that it is not open to the petitioner to re-agitate the matters in these proceedings that were agitated by it and considered by the Arbitrator in making his said award. The respondent states and submits that it is not open to the petitioner to re-agitate the matters in these proceedings that were agitated by it and considered by the Arbitrator in making his said award. It is absurd to allege that the Arbitrator overlooked the agreement, or that he was not entitled to rely on the evidence of the witness of the first respondent and the respondent to deny the same. It is denied that the said Award was made by the Arbitrator in the alleged circumstances, or that he has not entitled to arrive at the conclusion that he arrived at on the basis of the evidence adduced respectively on behalf of the petitioner and the first respondent, as alleged or at all. The insinuation as to the alleged purpose of the Arbitrator is uncalled for and unwarranted. It is denied that the first respondent acted in the alleged manner or that the Arbitrator overlooked any evidence adduced by the petitioner's witness or that he, in making his Award, acted in the alleged manner, as alleged or at all. It is denied that the Arbitrator proceeded with a closed or with a biased mind or that there was any fault or breach or negligence on the part of the first respondent, as alleged or at all. It is denied that the Arbitrator has acted on any surmises or assumption or presumptions or without any evidence or on the alleged basis as alleged or at all. It is denied that the Arbitrator in arriving at his conclusion as indicated in his said Award was dictated to by the first respondent or that any such alleged note or paper was submitted by the first respondent to him, as falsely and mischievously alleged or at all. The Respondent denies and disputes that in arriving at his said conclusion the Arbitrator did not act on the basis of the evidence as alleged or at all. The Respondent denies and disputes that the Award should be set aside, as wrongfully contended or at all. It is denied that the said award has been procured by the first respondent or that the said award is not an independent adjudication of the rights of the parties to the reference to the Arbitrator, as alleged or at all. The Respondent denies and disputes that the Award should be set aside, as wrongfully contended or at all. It is denied that the said award has been procured by the first respondent or that the said award is not an independent adjudication of the rights of the parties to the reference to the Arbitrator, as alleged or at all. ( 17 ) THE petitioner had challenged the Award on the following grounds namely :-1) The Learned Arbitrator proceeded on erroneous assumption of law which is an error of law apparent on the face of the Award. 2) His conduct and the steps during Arbitration Proceeding are biased and is an example of mis-conduct of proceedings. 3) The Learned Arbitrator misconducted the proceeding by accepting and relying on documents produced by the respondent No. 1 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to explain those documents and has violated the principle of natural justice and fair play. 4) The Learned Arbitrator granted pendente lite interest contrary to established legal principles. ( 18 ) I would take up second point, namely, the charge of bias levelled against the Arbitrator in conducting the Arbitration proceeding. First, it is urged that the Learned Arbitrator did not comply with the request of the petitioner to call for the relevant documents which were in the custody of the respondent No. 1 to arrive at a just conclusion, that the Counsel of the petitioner filed an application during the pendency of the Arbitration proceeding to call for the files the relevant correspondences and the minutes of the meeting held between the parties at the relevant time to ascertain and find out the materials and circumstances which prompted the parties to modify the original Agreement dated 15-2-85 by two addendums but even though the Arbitrator did not comply with the request of the petitioner to produce the documents but it appears that he had gone through the said files only to make comments without giving any opportunity to the petitioner either to produce documents or to refute the said allegations or to explain the situation which prompted the parties to arrive at the addendums to the original Agreement. ( 19 ) IN the petition also it is also contended that the Learned Arbitrator illegally disallowed the questions put by the counsel of the petitioner and, therefore, mis-conducted himself. ( 19 ) IN the petition also it is also contended that the Learned Arbitrator illegally disallowed the questions put by the counsel of the petitioner and, therefore, mis-conducted himself. ( 20 ) ON behalf of the respondent No. 1 the above submission has been seriously refuted. It is contended that the charge that the petitioner's learned Counsel was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witness fully is not true, that from a reading of the deposition as has been filed by the learned Arbitrator it is absolutely clear that fullest opportunity was given to the petitioner's learned Advocate and that only irrelevant questions which had nothing to do in Arbitration were disallowed by the Arbitrator. The charge that the Arbitrator did not direct the respondent No. 1 to produce the files even though the petition was filed calling for the files and relevant correspondences and thereby committed mis-conduct has also been challenged by the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that all the relevant documents which. are necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute and were in possession of the respondent No. 1. were produced before the learned Arbitrator and as such the question of giving any direction upon the Arbitrator by the petitioner's learned Advocate did not arise and that no further documents or files were there as all the relevant files and documents were produced before the Arbitrator. It is also contended that the application of the petitioner was vague and did not indicate which documents were required to be produced for proper adjudication. It is also denied that the learned Arbitrator has consulted the files without giving, any opportunity to the petitioner either to refute the allegations or to explain the situation which prompted the parties to arrive at the addendums to the original Agreements. My attention has been drawn to the Award wherein the learned Arbitrator has clearly indicated that all the documents which have been relied upon by the Arbitrator have been disclosed and formed part of the record of the proceeding. ( 21 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties on this point. The charge of mis-conduct levelled against the Arbitrator on this ground do not in my opinion have any sufficient basis. ( 21 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties on this point. The charge of mis-conduct levelled against the Arbitrator on this ground do not in my opinion have any sufficient basis. In conducting the proceeding the learned Arbitrator being a quasi judicial authority can disallow questions put to the witness by any party if the same be found to be irrelevant. Only because such questions were disallowed it cannot be held that the Arbitrator was either biased or he committed misconduct. Moreover, as regards not allowing the petitioner's application to call for the relevant files and correspondences necessary to decide as to what prompted the parties to create the two addendums the charge in this respect also appears to be very vague. The learned Arbitrator appears to consider all the relevant documents produced and tendered before him which formed part of the record and the petitioner's learned Advocate has not been able to specify as to which file or files were not produced and taken into consideration by the learned Arbitrator without giving the present petitioner opportunity to explain them. The allegations in this respect are so vague that I am unable to hold that there was mis-conduct of the Arbitrator in conducting the proceeding in Arbitration by refusing to call for relevant files and even then considering them. If the documents that were produced before the learned Arbitrator were considered by the Arbitrator then it must be presumed that those documents being part of the record the petitioner and his learned Advocate had sufficient opportunity to explain them. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner is not acceptable. ( 22 ) BEFORE going into the first and the main point challenging the Award of the learned Arbitrator I would dispose of third objection raised by the petitioner, namely, that even after the Arbitration proceeding was closed the learned Arbitrator allowed the respondent No. 1 to produce further documents and the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity to refute those documents. ( 23 ) THE allegations of the petitioner in this respect are that the learned Arbitrator closed his Arbitration proceeding on 10/05/1988 at about 11-30 A. M. , that the minutes of that date indicated that the learned Arbitrator served a letter calling for certain information, but the said letter was served at about 12. ( 23 ) THE allegations of the petitioner in this respect are that the learned Arbitrator closed his Arbitration proceeding on 10/05/1988 at about 11-30 A. M. , that the minutes of that date indicated that the learned Arbitrator served a letter calling for certain information, but the said letter was served at about 12. 30 P. M. at the foyer of the Hotel when the petitioner's partner and the counsel were about to leave for Bombay by 1-30 P. M. flight, that the learned Arbitrator must have thought that the informations are necessary to arrive at his conclusion and, as such, he served the said notice after the conclusion of the Arbitration proceeding when he himself recorded that the case was listed for passing of Award, that it appears. that on 11-5-88 another sitting was purported to be held when only the respondent No. 1 was present and the said respondent has filed two replies and notes of argument and that it is, therefore, clear that the Arbitrator had surreptitiously held this Arbitration meeting without giving any opportunity to the petitioner either to contradict the submission made by the respondent or to produce any other documents or evidence to substantiate the claim of the petitioner and that such a meeting held in the absence of the petitioner is a gross mis-conduct and is liable to be set aside. ( 24 ) ON behalf of the respondent it is contended that it is absolutely incorrect that the respondent submitted information and various other documents after the close of the proceeding on 10/05/1988, that a reference to the minutes dated 10/05/1988 will clearly show that no further new information or document was given to the learned Arbitrator, that the hearing of the proceeding had, in fact, been closed on 10/05/1988, that on that date the Arbitrator merely gave notice to the parties to give him a chart to indicate the documents in support of their claims, that the said notice was duly served upon both the parties on the very same date and the petitioner could have easily appeared before the Arbitrator if he intended to file any document if he thought it fit and if he was in difficulty he could have easily written letter to the Arbitrator explaining his difficulty and asking for further time that the records do not indicate that any steps were taken by the petitioner in this respect, that the respondent on 11-5-88 has merely given a chart and has referred to the documents which have already been disclosed and the question of giving any document or any file to the Arbitrator does not arise and that has no meeting after the close of the case on 10-5-88 was held and the allegation that the Arbitrator surreptitiously held a further meeting without giving any opportunity to the petitioner either to contradict the submission of the respondent or to produce fresh document is not true. ( 25 ) THE petitioner admits that on that very date on which the Arbitration proceeding was closed on 10/05/1988 the Arbitrator served a letter upon him calling for certain informations and it was received at the Hotel where a partner of the petitioner and the Advocate were lodged. The petitioner did not take any step to comply with that letter. It is true that he booked the flight for leaving Bombay on that very date at 1-30 P. M. But a message could have been sent asking for time. Nothing was done. The respondent No. 1 furnished the information by giving the chart of the documents on 11-5-88. The Award was published by the Arbitrator on 10/05/1988. A letter dated 17-5-88 sent by the petitioner from Calcutta by post appears to have been received by the Arbitrator on 20-6-88. Nothing was done. The respondent No. 1 furnished the information by giving the chart of the documents on 11-5-88. The Award was published by the Arbitrator on 10/05/1988. A letter dated 17-5-88 sent by the petitioner from Calcutta by post appears to have been received by the Arbitrator on 20-6-88. By that time the Award has already been published when both the parties were given opportunity to submit the chart of the documents and to furnish relevant information to the Arbitrator to facilitate the Arbitrator to same and publish the Award even after the Arbitration proceeding was closed and the respondent No. 1 complied with it but the petitioner did not, then I am unable to hold that the learned Arbitrator conducted the proceeding of Arbitration by violating the principle of natural justice. No new document was tendered by the respondent No. 1 after the close of the Arbitration proceeding nor was such document considered by the Arbitrator while making and publishing the Award. The learned Arbitrator had before him all the relevant documents and on the basis thereof be made and published the Award. The notice dated 10-5-88 was issued only to facilitate him to properly appreciate the large number of documents produced before him by the parties. The respondent No. 1 by submitting the chart helped the Arbitrator but the petitioner did not choose to help him. But I am unable to hold that any new document was called for or produced by the respondent No. 1 before the learned Arbitrator after 10-5-1988 or that any such new document was considered by the Arbitration while making the Award. Therefore, the Arbitrator cannot be held guilty of violating the principle of natural justice or to have held any sitting after the close of the Arbitration proceeding behind the back of the petitioner. If the petitioner were really serious to furnish the information, he could have even postponed his departure for Bombay on 10-5-1988 to comply with such requisition but by not doing so and only writing a letter dated 17/05/1988 from Calcutta asking for further opportunity to produce document which had actually reached the Arbitrator after he had made and published the Award on 19-5-88, the petitioner cannot be permitted to level the charge against the Arbitrator that the Arbitrator was guilty of mis-conduct. ( 26 ) THE main ground of attack on the Arbitrator is that the Arbitrator in arriving at the conclusion that the claim of the respondent is justified proceeded on an erroneous assumption of law. My attention has been drawn that even though under Clause 11 of the Agreement the meaning of the word "profit" on the turnover was not at all ambiguous, the learned Arbitrator on the erroneous assumption of law observed that the expression "profit" in Clause 11 is ambiguous, that even though the respondent No. 1 contended that the word "profit" should be construed as "royalty" the learned Arbitrator even though did not accept such contention made a third case that under Clause 11 the sum mentioned is payable as fixed amount like dead-rent irrespective of the fact whether the lottery tickets were released or not by the first respondent. It is also contended that the learned Arbitrator erroneously, observed that in arriving at the above conclusion he was entitled to look into the documents other than the written Agreement, like correspondence, subsequent conduct of the parties and that he has also on erroneous assumption of law held that in computation of the liability under the Agreement in Clause 13 of the Award the "profit" in the Agreement was fixed at Rs. 2,25,75,000. 00 while the same profit under the Agreement was a variable factor and the liability was Rs. 22,35,000. 00 on the actual turnover of Rs. 4. 47 crores. ( 27 ) THE above observations of the Arbitrator, according to the petitioner, is clearly an error apparent to the face of the Award because the Agreement clearly indicates that under Clause 11 the petitioner has the liability to pay Rs. 2,25,75,000. 00 as a profit on a total turnover of Rs. 15,00,000,00. 00, that the addendums also provided that on the total turnover of Rs. 5,00,000,00. 00 a profit of Rs. 25,00,000. 00 could be paid, that correspondence during the subsistence of the Agreement too proceeded on that basis and the definite stand of the petitioner was that the profit is payable on the turnover or the tickets released during the subsistence of the Agreement and that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 1,49,57,700. 00 and Rs. 22,35,000. 25,00,000. 00 could be paid, that correspondence during the subsistence of the Agreement too proceeded on that basis and the definite stand of the petitioner was that the profit is payable on the turnover or the tickets released during the subsistence of the Agreement and that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 1,49,57,700. 00 and Rs. 22,35,000. 00 in terms of the Agreement on the basis of the tickets released irrespective of whether the tickets were sold or not and that it is the total mis-conduct and thoroughly perverse on the part of the Arbitrator to impose upon the parties an interpretation of his own on Agreement which the parties themselves did not contemplate at the time of the formation of the Contract or even at the time when the disputes arose between the parties on the very point. It is, therefore, urged that the Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction in travelling beyond the pleading of the parties. It is contended that the Arbitrator introduced an alien concept like dead-rent and that too violating the provision of Sections 92 to 95 of the Evidence Act. It is submitted that the Privy Council decision reported in AIR 1930 PC 165 has clearly held that when question was one purely of construction of an Agreement the subsequent conduct of the parties is irrelevant. It is also pointed out that when there is no ambiguity in Clause 11 and when the meaning of the word is plain then it is not the duty of the Arbitrator to busy himself with supposed intention. This is the view of the Privy Council in AIR 1939 PC 47. ( 28 ) ON behalf of the respondent it is contended that the Arbitrator was given the jurisdiction by the terms of the reference to interpret Clause 11 of the Agreement to ascertain as to what further liability the petitioner had under the Agreement, that it was, therefore, competent for the learned Arbitrator to give his own interpretation and only because the interpretation which the petitioner wants to give to Clause 11 of the Agreement was not accepted by the learned Arbitrator it cannot be held that the Arbitrator committed misconduct. It is also permitted that the Supreme Court in M/s. Hind Buildings v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1340 has held that if there is an ambiguity in the Agreement and if the two views are possible after going through the entire Agreement and if the Arbitrator has arrived at one view, the Court ought not to impose its own view in setting aside the Award. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court has laid down that Court should try to uphold an Award and not to set aside the same merely because a different view is taken by the Arbitrator in interpreting the Agreement between the parties specially when the parties themselves have agreed to have the Agreement interpreted by the learned Arbitrator. If this view of the Arbitrator is a possible view then the award cannot be set aside. This is the view of Supreme Court in AIR 1989 SC 1263 (Food Corporation of India v. Jagindar Pal Mohindar Pal ). ( 29 ) ON carefully considering the submissions made by both the parties, I am of the view that it was competent for the Arbitrator to interpret clause 11 of the agreement when under terms of reference he was given the specific direction to give his own interpretation of the said term and to decide as to whether the petitioner had any further liability under the Agreement. I am not of the view that only because the word "profit" is mentioned in Clause 11 of the Agreement, it is not competent for the Arbitrator to interpret the said word in a different way regard being had to the totality of the circumstances appearing before the learned Arbitrator and when such an interpretation has been given and when that can also be a possible view, then only because he did not accept the contention of the petitioner that there is no ambiguity in clause 11 the Award is not vitiated by misconduct. When two views are possible as regards the terms of the Agreement and the Arbitrator takes one view in the light of the circumstances disclosed then in view of the clear decisions of the Supreme Court on this point, I am unable to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of Award for the Court to interfere with it. In that view of the matter first point raised by the petitioner that there is an error apparent on the award cannot be accepted. ( 30 ) THE last contention of the petitioner is as regards the award of the pendente lite interest by the learned Arbitrator Mr. Banerjee appearing for the respondent has clearly conceded that in view of the clear decisions of the Supreme Court the present arbitration not being a reference in a pending suit under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to Award pendente lite interest. He submits that the Award of the pendente lite interest being severable from the main Award that portion of the Award may be deleted by not interfering with the main award. ( 31 ) IN the circumstances, the application is allowed in part. The Award passed by the learned Arbitrator is modified to the extent that the pendente lite interest awarded by the learned Arbitrator is deleted from the Award. Subject to this modification the Award is affirmed. In the circumstances I direct the parties to bear the respective costs of this proceeding themselves. All parties shall act on the signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment upon usual undertaking. Application partly allowed.