Vijender Jain, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 21. 4. 2004 of the learned Single Judge setting aside the award regarding claims No. 2a and 5 and upholding the award regarding other claims the appellant has filed the present appeal. Before the learned Single Judge the argument was advanced on behalf of the appellant/objector, restricting his arguments and objections to claim nos. 1, I-E to 2-A, 5 and 6. It seems that apart from these arguments advanced in Court, the appellant submitted its written submissions, also in respect of claim Nos. 1-H, 1-H (C), 2-F though arguments were not advanced in the Court in respect of these claims. ( 2 ) IN this appeal, Mr. Kumar learned counsel for the appellant has stated that he is confining his arguments only in relation to claim No. 3 in the award made by the arbitrators and rejection of his arguments by the learned Single Judge in relation to said claim No. 3. From perusal of orders of learned Single Judge, it is evident that no argument had been advanced by the appellant in relation to claim No. 3 before the learned single Judge nor written submissions were given in respect of said claim. On this ground alone, we could have dismissed this appeal. However, as the learned Single Judge has noticed in the impugned order arguments in respect to claim No. 3 and as Mr. Kumar has repeatedly contended that the impugned order be set aside in relation to claim No. 3 as the award was outside the scope of the agreement, we consider the same. ( 3 ) HE has contended and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in MD. Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services pvt. Ltd. , (2004) 9 SCC 619 , where it was held that in case the arbitrator has no jurisdiction, no jurisdiction can be conferred on the arbitrator even by the consent of the parties. The counsel for appellant has also contended that the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is confined to four corners of the agreement and he can only pass such an award which may be the subject matter of the reference. Lastly, it was contended by Mr. Kumar that the arbitrator has no inherent power, therefore, the award given under claim no. The counsel for appellant has also contended that the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is confined to four corners of the agreement and he can only pass such an award which may be the subject matter of the reference. Lastly, it was contended by Mr. Kumar that the arbitrator has no inherent power, therefore, the award given under claim no. 3 was outside the reference and arbitrators could not have given the said award and the learned Single Judge fell in error while allowing award under claim No. 3. ( 4 ) CLAIM No. 3 was in relation to restructuring of rates. It would be appropriate to reproduce the findings of the arbitrators, which reads as under:- "claim NO. 3 restructure of rate for work done during extended period Rs. 33,36,081. 44 1. Due to prolongation of the project, the claimants contended that there was a rising trend of market and that they had to suffer on account of escalation of prices. They stated that beyond the stipulated date of completion, i. e. 9. 8. 92 they had claimed escalation at 25% over agreed fates till 30. 3. 93, till end of May 93 at 50% and 95% thereafter i. e. June to Dec 93 (C-94) and pleaded for declaratory award for subsequent period till date of completion. While awarding the Contract LOI stated that no escalation shall be payable, since the period stipulated was less than 6 months. As the period got prolonged, claimants bill towards escalation was returned. In may 93 respondents accepted to make payments towards escalation. Claimants submitted that from April 93 onwards they have been asking for pecuniary compensation/revised rates and sited the letters on records. They stated that from the claim based on revised rates they have made deduction of amount received as escalation in this claim and the amount towards exceptional rise in prices of certain items claimed under claim 4. 2. The respondents stated the claim is based on Specific Relief act, and since they have been paid escalation they are barred from this claim. They stated that they are entitled to reasonable extension of time in terms of Clause 57. 1 and no compensation or cost, over run charges. Respondents referred to Claimants letter at Exhibit R-49 dt. 18. 4. The respondents stated the claim is based on Specific Relief act, and since they have been paid escalation they are barred from this claim. They stated that they are entitled to reasonable extension of time in terms of Clause 57. 1 and no compensation or cost, over run charges. Respondents referred to Claimants letter at Exhibit R-49 dt. 18. 4. 92 and stated that claimants are ignoring the fact that they are being paid escalation, though escalation clause did not exist and having accepted escalation they are estoppeled from raising such a claim. It is also clear from the Exhibit R-49 that they were satisfied with the escalation as they were willing to take on extra work at the agreement rates with escalation. Award. " ( 5 ) ESCALATION Clause in Agreement was made applicable after the project got extended and extension of time was granted by respondents. In nov. 92 (R-29), Claimants had accepted to take on additional work on the same rates provided escalation was agreed to with indices of Aug 91. In may 93 respondents agreed to pay escalation as per terms of the Agreement. There are a few letters from the claimants asking for revision of rates/interim relief in terms of escalation etc. ( 6 ) THERE is no provision in the contract for revision of rate, but claimants should have been paid/ compensated for escalation as per terms of the Agreement. Clause 8. 1 provides for escalation in prices for the work done during the stipulated period of the contract including such period for which the contract is validly extended; till 31. 5. 93 escalation has been paid. Further provisional extensions have been granted till date of completion and final bill has been also paid. There is nothing on record that respondents intended to, or have indicated that they had any thought of not giving the extension of time which they have given as "provisional . In this regard case law Hydel Construction Ltd. v. H. P. State Electricity Board, 1999 (3) arb LR 28 (H. P.), (Exhibit C-1032) is relevant. In our view valid reasons for extension of time exists till completion of the project and claimants should have been paid escalation as per Clause 8 of the Agreement. ( 7 ) AS per Clause 8. In our view valid reasons for extension of time exists till completion of the project and claimants should have been paid escalation as per Clause 8 of the Agreement. ( 7 ) AS per Clause 8. 2 regarding escalation, the base date for working out such escalation shall be date on which tender were stipulated to be received. Revised tender bid based on IMPG letter dated Aug 1, 1991, is dated 6 Aug 91, based on which Work order was issued. Base dated for working out the escalation will thus be 1 Aug 91. ( 8 ) PARTIES were asked to work out and file escalation payable based on the index; As per joint statement filled by the parties the escalation payable with base index of Aug 91 works out to Rs. 15,13,488/55. ( 9 ) WE, therefore, conclude that respondents will pay the claimants as under- escalation on work done based on Index of Aug 91 rs. 15,13,488. 55 less escalation paid as per final bill (PC27) Rs. 5,48,024. 44 net amount payable Rs. 9,65,464. 11" ( 10 ) THE question for our consideration is whether the restructuring of rates for the work done during extended period which as a matter of fact has been taken into consideration by the arbitrator as normal escalation which has been awarded to the respondent by the appellant themselves during the subsistence of the contract is outside the agreement and could not have been awarded. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING the facts of the case, it is evident that escalation clause in agreement was made applicable after the project got extended and extension of time was granted by the appellant which has not been disputed. For extensions of time granted by appellant, as per clause 8. 1 of the agreement, escalation in price of work done during extended period upto 31. 5. 1993 was granted and same ha? not been disputed by the appellant. The appellant after 31. 5. 1993 have also granted extensions. Though extensions after 31. 5. 1993 have been termed provisional, nonetheless extensions were granted and have not been disputed by the appellant. Escalation of price has been considered as restructuring of rates by the appellant and has been granted till 31. 5. 1993. Therefore, escalation has been granted in terms of agreement. 5. 1993 have also granted extensions. Though extensions after 31. 5. 1993 have been termed provisional, nonetheless extensions were granted and have not been disputed by the appellant. Escalation of price has been considered as restructuring of rates by the appellant and has been granted till 31. 5. 1993. Therefore, escalation has been granted in terms of agreement. Further escalation due to extensions granted till date of completion in these circumstances can not be termed outside the scope of agreement. The plea now raised in appeal in ex facie without any basis and contrary to appellant s stand. ( 12 ) LAW is well settled that when parties have chosen a forum other than the normal forum of civil court and have chosen to have their disputes referred and decided by an arbitral forum, the court would be reluctant to substitute its own opinion for that of the arbitrators. The arbitral forum of two arbitrators in this particular case was constituted as per the arbitration clause. The learned Single Judge has relied on the decision by the Supreme Court in ONGC v. Saw Pipes Limited, JT 2003 (4) SC 171 which lays down the parameters when Court is empowered to set aside the award if it is not in accordance with the agreement of the parties yet the award passed is not to be interfered with lightly. He has further held that the arbitrators had applied their mind, gave their reasons for allowing claim No. 3 and have relied on provisional extensions given by appellant and escalationsc paid till 31. 5. 93 which have not been denied by the appellants. The argument that restructuring of rate was not permissible in terms of the agreement between the parties has been held to be without any merit and contrary to pleas of the appellant. The observation of the learned Single Judge that the arbitrator had considered the matter as per clause 8. 1 which provides for escalation in prices for the work done during the stipulated period of the contract which was validly extended. The plea of the appellant that it was beyond the scope of arbitration is thus without any basis. The categorical finding of the Arbitral Tribunal is that appellant agreed to pay escalation as per terms of agreement and even paid the escalation for some period. The plea of the appellant that it was beyond the scope of arbitration is thus without any basis. The categorical finding of the Arbitral Tribunal is that appellant agreed to pay escalation as per terms of agreement and even paid the escalation for some period. ( 13 ) EVENTUALLY it can not be said that the escalation was not in terms of agreement and is on account of consent of parties beyond the scope of agreement nor it can be said that it was not the subject matter of reference not it can be said that arbitrators had given award in respect of this claim under their inherent power. It is for this reason that this claim No. 3 was not challenged before the learned Single Judge either by advancing any arguments or filing written submission about it. Consequently the plea of appellant is bereft of any substance and merit and is liable for rejection. No other findings on other claims have been challenged before us. ( 14 ) WO "find no merit in this appeal. ( 15 )