JUDGMENT Mookherjee, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.12.91, of the learned Second Assistant District Judge, Midnapore in J. Misc. case No. 10 of 1991, whereby the learned Judge rejected the appellant's application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. 2. The Arbitrator pronounced an award, inter alia, directing return of the earnest money of Rs. 20,000/-, payment of Rs. 6,11,500/- in full and final settlement in respect of the claims of the claimant. There were directions for payment of interest as also for cost. 3. The crux of the submissions, made on behalf of the appellant before us, has been that the award suffered from errors apparent on the face of it and for the purpose of substantiating the said point it was contended on behalf of the appellant that (i) the Arbitrator awarded an amount, which was higher than the amount of the claim of the claimant, (ii) the claim of the contractor for the alleged extra works done by him could not be said to be a work done in terms of the contract and as such any dispute relating thereto could not constitute a matter for reference to arbitration, in terms of the relevant clause in the said contract, and, (iii) the Arbitrator mis-conducted himself by not having taken into consideration the documents before him as could be found from the statement in the award itself, which expressly failed to record that all (under lining is mine) the documents and papers had been so considered by the Arbitrator and also for non-consideration of the counter statement of facts. 4. The restricted scope for the Court to interfere with an award in terms of Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act is well settled. In the case of (1) Champsey Bhara and Company v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Company Limited reported in AIR 1923 Privy Council, page 66, the Privy Council defined ‘error of law apparent on the face of the award’ as one which could be found, in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto, to be some legal proposition, which is the basis of the award, and which could be said to be erroneous. In other words, it appears that for finding out an error on the face of the award, delving into the records was not permissible. In other words, it appears that for finding out an error on the face of the award, delving into the records was not permissible. The ratio propounded by the Privy Council had been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of (2) Firm Modanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukum Chand Mill reported in AIR 1967 SC 1030 and it was further clarified by the Supreme Court that such error must be detectable from the award of the Arbitrator. In the case of (3) N. Chelapan v. Kerala State Electricity Board reported in AIR 1975 SC 230 , a three Judges’ Bench, while reiterating the ratios propounded in the cases referred to above, indicated that an error could not be said to be apparent on the face of the award if, for finding that out, investigation into the merits of the case and examination of documentary and oral evidence on record were necessary. The same view was reflected in the judgment of another three Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of (4) State of Andhra Pradesh &. Anr. v. R.V. Rayanim reported in AIR 1990 SC 626 , when the Supreme Court expressed in no unequivocal term that in case of a non-speaking award it was not opened to Court to probe the mental process of the Arbitrator and speculate as to what impelled the Arbitrator to arrive at his conclusion. 5. In the instant case the award admittedly is a non-speaking award, and, accordingly, on application of the aforesaid principles, laid down by the Privy Council and approved and followed with clarification by our Apex Court, it is not opened to us to interfere with the award. No doubt, the appellant with regard to the first instance of the error as noted above, tried to draw support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (5) Dandasi Sahu v. State of Orissa reported in AIR 1990 SC 1128 , but the said case is distinguishable on facts, as, in the present case the award did not exceed the claimed amount. On behalf of the appellant further, by reliance upon the case of (6) Associated Engineering Company v. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1992 SC 232 , it was attempted to be argued that in finding out an error the Court was entitled to look into the contract but in our view the said decision cannot extend any help to the appellant because factually in the cited case there was a concession that the award deviated from the formula prescribed under the contract in question though no such concession is available in the present case. The other contention of the appellant was that whatever extra work had been undertaken by the contractor the claim for the same could not constitute a dispute referable to the Arbitrator. In support of the said contention reference was made to the case of (7) Continental Construction Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1988 SC 1166 . The said case is distinguishable as on the award itself the contractor was not found entitled to extra cost towards rise in prices of material and labour and, contract was looked into, because, reference to the contract in the award, in law, was to be deemed as if the clause had been set out in full in the award and as such the perusal of such clause was really a consideration of the contents of the award. Thus all the points canvassed by the appellant fail and the appeal must, therefore, fail also. We dismiss the appeal and affirm the order of the learned Trial Judge. There will be no order as to costs. Chakraborty, J. : I agree.