JUDGMENT B. Prakash Rao, J. This appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful petitioners in the Court below in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in brevity the Act) seeking to set aside the Award dated 23-12-2002 passed by the arbitrators, who are added as the respondents 2 to 4, allowing certain claims made at the instance of the respondent No.1, as per the order dated 30-10-2004 in O.P. No.633 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Heard Sri D. Sudershan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri C. Kodanda Ram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent No.1. The respondents 2 to 4 are the arbitral panel. 3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the appellants herein, (conveniently called as petitioners herein) who are the successors to the former statutory Board, namely A.P. State Electricity Board, floated the Global Tenders on 28-4-1998 as a part of international competitive bidding in regard to the World Bank Aided Power Restructuring Project for high priority requirement in transmission and distribution system of the appellants on a fixed price basis, wherein the respondent No.1 filed its quotation on 9-7-1998. The work contemplated was the procurement of AAA conductors required for laying 33 KV, 11 KV and L T lines in six lots and total value of the bid was for US $91 ,03,250 exclusive of sales tax and excise duty but including freight and insurance. The bids were opened on 17-7-1998 and ultimately the bid of the 1st respondent, who having been found to be lowest was accepted and it was notified to him as per letter dated 30-1-1999, which was received on 12-2-1999. Accordingly, a letter of intent was given on the even date to the respondent No.1 and he has furnished performance security on 18-2-1999 in the form of bank guarantee for 5% of the contract value i.e. for US $4,55, 163 in favour of the appellants from the Syndicate Bank which was extended upto 9.5.2001. The appellants had accepted the same by letter dated 26-2-1 999 and issued a purchase order on 4-3-1999 containing terms and conditions of the supply of goods and mode of payment. The appellants had accepted the same by letter dated 26-2-1 999 and issued a purchase order on 4-3-1999 containing terms and conditions of the supply of goods and mode of payment. The special conditions under the contract and the general conditions of contract along with technical specifications of the bid package, as entered into between the parties features amongst of the following important conditions: (a) The payments for the supplies made have to be paid in US $ (Dollars). (b) All payments ~have to be made through Letter(s) of Credit (UC) in US$. (c) The delivery of goods has to commence within two months from the date of opening of UC for 10% Advance payment by the APTRANSCO and the entire contract quantity has to be supplied by the GPTL, within six months from the date of commencement of delivery. (d) LIC for 10% advance payment has to be opened by the APTRANSCO i.e. the purchaser within 30 days from the date of signing of the contract agreement i.e. 4-3-1999 (e) The date of commencement of delivery has to be reckoned from the date of actual payment of 10% advance. (f) The bank guarantee for US $ 9,05,800 equivalent to 10% advance amount has to be furnished valid until the entire quantity of goods under the contract are delivered i.e., the final lot is delivered. (g) The payment of 10% advance shall be effected against the LIC on submission of performance security claim in the prescribed proforma and 10% advance bank guarantee as per Clause 6(i) of the purchase order. 4. Accordingly, the contract of demand was duly signed on 4-3-1999 between the respondentNo1 and the appellants. The entire transaction and the contract as entered into with the terms and conditions contained therein, includes as a part thereof, the following documents viz.: (a) The bid form and price schedule submitted by the bidder/GPTL. (b) The schedule of requirements. (c) The technical specifications. (d) The general conditions of contract. (e) The special conditions of contract. (f) The purchasers notification of award (purpose order). Further as per the clause 6(i) of the purchase order which provides for advance payment. (b) The schedule of requirements. (c) The technical specifications. (d) The general conditions of contract. (e) The special conditions of contract. (f) The purchasers notification of award (purpose order). Further as per the clause 6(i) of the purchase order which provides for advance payment. It reads as follows: Terms of payment: payment will be made in US Dollars as indicated below: 10% of the total Ex-works price shall be paid through UC established in favour of the supplier within 30 days of signing of the contract agreement and subject to submission of: (a) Performance security in accordance with clause 3 (GCC 7.1) of the SCC (Section - V of bid document) and clause 5 of this purchase order. (b) Claim, and (c) A bank guarantee for the equivalent amount i.e. 10% of the total ex-works price amounting to US $ 9.05,800 valid until the goods are delivered." Therefore, it is contemplated that the appellants have to establish a UC in respect of 10% total ex-works in favour of the respondent within 30 days from the date of signing of the contract agreement i.e. 3-4-1999 and that the actual payment of the advance amount through UC would be subject to the submission of the stipulated documents specified therein as above (a) (b) (c). The respondent No.1 had furnished the bank guarantee (BG No.7/99) from the Syndicate Bank on 15-3-1999 itself for US $ 9,05,800 i.e. 10% of the total ex works price even before the appellants would establish the UC, which was valid up to 30-11-1999. Initially it was made in favour of the Chief Engineer (P&MM), but however subsequently, it was amended on 19-3-1999 in favour of the Chief Engineer (APL). Instead of the appellants coming forth for establishing the UC in respect of 10% of total ex-works price, it was quoted rupee equivalent of 10% of advance payment by cheque dated 5-5-1999forasum of Rs.3,89,67,516/- which was received by the respondent NO.1 on 10-5-1999. Thus, the appellants did not open the UC. within 30 days of the purchase order which expired on 3-4-1999 and even the advance payment was also not within the said period. At the instance of the appellants, the 1st respondent extended the validity period of the Bank guarantee on 3-5-1999 upto 30-1-2000. Thus, the appellants did not open the UC. within 30 days of the purchase order which expired on 3-4-1999 and even the advance payment was also not within the said period. At the instance of the appellants, the 1st respondent extended the validity period of the Bank guarantee on 3-5-1999 upto 30-1-2000. Yet, the respondent No.1 had entered into a contract with the foreign supplier of Aluminium (COMALCO Aluminium Limited, Australia) for the import of 220 MT of Aluminium Ingots for making supply to the appellants. Therefore, the complaint on the part of the respondent No.1 was that due to the non-opening of the letters of credit there has been a substantial delay. However, the respondent No.1 offered first lot of goods (AAA Conductors) for inspection on 22-6-1999 as per the letter dated 18-6-1999. Whereupon the appellants inspection was made on 23-6-1999 and yet no letter of credit was established by the appellants even for the goods inspected. However, the respondent No.1 dispatched the materials on 8-7-1 999 and 9-7-1999. The appellants released 80% of ex-works price for those goods on 9-9-1999, 6-1 0-1999, 4-11-1999 and 24-1-2000. Further 1 00% sales tax in respect of those goods were paid on 20-1-2000 and 100% freight and insurance in respect of those goods was paid on 19-9-2000. The price of the goods which were supplied was Rs.2,22,21,387/-. This was forwarded by the respondent No.1 for the dispakhon2-8-1999, 5-8-1999, 6-8-1999and on further dates. Thus by October, 1999, 31.8% of the contracted material was supplied by the respondent No.1. However, the appellants did not make any payment during the period from 7-10-1999 to 3-11-1999 or 16-11-1999 to 19-1-2000. The amount for those goods which have been supplied accumulated to Rs.494 lakhs by the end of October, 1999 and Rs. 609 lakhs by pend of November, 1999 and RS.1093 lakhs by the end of December, 1999. 5. The case of the respondent NO.1 was that in spite of the several reminders no payments were forthcoming from 16-11-1999 onwards till 19-1-2000 and it is only from the latter dates, the appellants started clearing the dues. Therefore, by the end of December, 1999 it was stated that the outstanding dues payable by the appellants to the respondent No.1 amounted to 60.65% for the supplies made on 28.51 % of the price for the total contracted quantity. Therefore, by the end of December, 1999 it was stated that the outstanding dues payable by the appellants to the respondent No.1 amounted to 60.65% for the supplies made on 28.51 % of the price for the total contracted quantity. Thus, the complaint of the respondent No.1 was that there has been breach on the part of the appellants and having regard to the enormous dues amounting to RS.1093 lakhs the bankers of the respondent refused to extend the facility for purchase of raw-materials and other operations from the end of December, 1999. Though the appellants made all payments for the goods supplied in Indian Rupees, however, there has been inordinate delay on every occasion and thereby imposing substantial financial burden on the respondent No 1. Since the respondent No.1 did not supply any material thereafter, the appellants terminated the contract on 19-2-2001 by invoking the bank guarantee for US $ 455,163. At this stage the respondent No.1 apprehending against the invocation of the bank guarantee by the appellants, approached the Court below in O.P.No.1 of 2001 by way of an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and sought injunction against the bank from making any payment. In respect of the same the Syndicate Bank paid all the amounts. As per the letter dated 14-12-2000 the appellants asked the 1st respondent as to why the contract should not be terminated since the balance material was not supplied to which the respondent No.1 has replied on 6-1-2001 explaining all the failures on the part of the appellants itself in adhering to the terms and conditions of the purchase order and sought for a joint meeting to settle the disputes as per clause 28.1 Section IV of GCC. However, there were no such meetings but the appellants terminated the contract on 19-2-2001 as aforesaid. 6. Clause 10 of the purchase order contemplated for resolution of the disputes through arbitration and therefore, since there were no nominations on the part of the appellants, the respondent No.1 filed Arbitration Application No.29 of 2001 under Section 11 (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in this Court for appointment of an arbitrator to go into the dispute and resolve. Ultimately the said application was allowed appointing the present arbitrators the respondents 3 and 4, who have chosen the respondent No.2 as the presiding arbitrator/ umpire who went into the arbitration. Ultimately the said application was allowed appointing the present arbitrators the respondents 3 and 4, who have chosen the respondent No.2 as the presiding arbitrator/ umpire who went into the arbitration. The respondent No.1 has set forth with the 14 claims under various heads: Claim No.1: Claim for price escalation in terms of Clause 16.3, Section III, Bid Data Sheet (Annexure 3) for 57,719 US$ Claim No.2: Loss incurred by way of bank commission on bid security Rs.38,015/- (Annexure 4). Claim 3: Loss incurred due to increase in cost of raw material on account of delay in opening UC by APTRANSCO towards 10% advance payment in US $ 1,41,120 (Annexure 5). Claim No.4: Loss of Bank Commission of Rs.99,421/- due to extension of bank guarantee validity period (Annexure 6). Claim No.5: Loss on account of inordinate delay in payments for the supplies effected Rs.67,35,351/(Annexure 2). Claim No.6: Loss of profit for the unexecuted work in US $ 12,33,995/(Annexure 7). Claim No.7: Loss due to extension of bank guarantee for 10% advance payment Rs.4,97,1 05/- (Annexure 8). Claim No.8. Loss due to price escalation of raw material US $ 50,826 (Annexure 9). Claim No.9: Loss incurred due to duty exemption scheme benefit denial Rs.98,63, 185/- (Annexure 10). Claim No.10: Loss of business suffered due to the cancellation RS.7,00,00,000/-. Claim Nos.11 and 12: Wrongful invocation of 10% advance BG, 5% performance BG US$ 9,05,800 and BG US $ 4,55,163 Claim Nos.13 and 14: Claim of the opposite party and costs. 7. These claims were contested by the appellants and they also came forward with the counter claims. During the course of the Arbitration proceedings, no oral evidence was produced from both sides, but sought to rely on the documents submitted by either side. Ultimately, the arbitrator passed the Award on 23-12-2002 allowing the claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 and rejecting the claims 1 to 3,8 and 9. The arbitrator rejected the entire counter claim submitted by the appellants and no costs were allowed. Challenging the said award the present application has been filed by the appellants in the Court below. 8. Neither side has produced any evidence in the Court and on the basis of the award proceedings and the submissions made the application filed by the appellants, was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 9. Challenging the said award the present application has been filed by the appellants in the Court below. 8. Neither side has produced any evidence in the Court and on the basis of the award proceedings and the submissions made the application filed by the appellants, was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 9. Sri D. Sudershan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted by taking us through the entire material in the award proceedings and the proceedings of the Court below that the claims as allowed by the arbitrator as aforesaid are wholly unsustainable and the respondent NO.1 is not entitled to any amounts as claimed thereunder. Further the counter claims made by the appellants ought not to have been rejected. Further there has been serious glaring and substantial error and illegality in the conduct of proceedings before the arbitrators and in the award. Since there was no due and proper enquiry by properly marking of the documents for enabling due appreciation as required under law and therefore, the arbitrators have been totally misled in not considering many of the documents, though those are part of the record. It was pointed out in the Court below, no attempt was made for leading evidence either oral or otherwise for proving the documents by the respondent and therefore, there has been a total miscarriage in the very approach made and the ultimate conclusions as arrived at. According to him, there is no specific finding on the main and core issue as to the breach and by whom, and therefore, the question of imposing any liability does not arise. That apart the learned counsel submitted that the very award is in the terms of the mandatory procedure and is not a complete one in the due format as required under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as the same is not passed by the umpire and the arbitration with consensus, as there is absence in regard to the signatures amongst arbitrators. Therefore, such an award is wholly void and liable to be set aside. 10. Sri C. Kodanda Ram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 seeking to sustain the findings both at the level of the arbitrators as that of the Court below and submitted that the award is perfectly valid including the claims as granted in favour of the respondent No.1. 10. Sri C. Kodanda Ram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 seeking to sustain the findings both at the level of the arbitrators as that of the Court below and submitted that the award is perfectly valid including the claims as granted in favour of the respondent No.1. which is wholly basis supported by valid material on record and it is only in view of the breach committed on behalf of the appellants in not adhering to the very terms of the contract, the respondent No.1 is rightly held to be entitled for such amounts and therefore, there is absolutely no error in awarding such amounts. Further it was contended that having regard to the scope and the well established principles an enquiry in regard to an application filed under Section 34 of the said Act, the Court below could not have possibly gone into the merits or re-appreciate any evidence or material nor could tamper with the findings as arrived at on the facts by the arbitrators, as long as no such vitiating error is made out, to warrant interference under the said provision. Therefore, the appellants cannot convert either the application filed by them in the Court below as a regular first appeal on facts and thus not entitled to canvass on merits and the same would extend to the scope in the appeal. Further it was pointed out that the appellants now cannot complain as against the non-marking of the documents, since both sides agreed to proceed with the enquiry without any such formalities to which the respondent No.1 also agreed to and therefore, mere non-marking of the documents even otherwise cannot be a ground to set aside the award. Coming to the other submission, it was urged that the award was passed duly by arbitrators along with the umpire together and therefore, the same is perfectly valid. Even otherwise it is submitted that there exists no such irregularity to vitiate or invalidate the very award and there are absolutely no merits in any of the pleas raised in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. With these above and other detailed submissions as made on behalf of the both sides and on perusal of the record and material, the main points which arise for consideration in this appeal are: 1. 11. With these above and other detailed submissions as made on behalf of the both sides and on perusal of the record and material, the main points which arise for consideration in this appeal are: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances the Court below can go Size Order Quantity Supplied Quantity Percentage Balance Quality 100sq. 3500 km. 2202 Km. 62.91% 1298 Km. mm 55sq. 15000km. 8103 km. 54.02% 6897 km. mm 34sq. mm. 1200km. 2615 km. 21.79% 9385 km. into merits in an application filed under Section 34 of the Act to assess the correctness of the findings given by the arbitrator either in respect of the claims which are awarded in favour of the respondent No.1 or on the rejection of the counter claims made by the appellants and the findings given in this regard are liable to be set aside. 2. Whether the enquiry before the arbitral proceedings and the Court below without marking the documents, held on either side is vitiated and illegal? 3. Whether the award as made by the arbitrators and the umpire on 23-12-2002 is valid? 12. Points 1 and 2: There is no dispute to the chequered events in regard to the basic transaction and the subsequent facts and circumstances. However, the case of the appellants is that having regard to the nature of the terms and conditions, the payments are being made to the first respondent through account payee cheques from time to time as and when the materials are delivered and the bills presented which is in Indian rupees equivalent to US dollars at the ruling Dollar exchange rate prevailing on the day of release of payment as per the instructions in para 4(a) of G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 22-4-1999 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. All these payments were accepted by the first respondent and there was absolutely no protest on its part nor there was any categorical insistence by them for payment only in US dollars. The supplies were commenced by the first respondent in July, 1999 and went on up to December, 1999 and the details of which are shown as follows: 13. Admittedly, there was no supply during January, 2000. However, the first respondent was insisting for establishing letter of credit in advance for the entire balance quantity of conductor for restoration of supplies. The supplies were commenced by the first respondent in July, 1999 and went on up to December, 1999 and the details of which are shown as follows: 13. Admittedly, there was no supply during January, 2000. However, the first respondent was insisting for establishing letter of credit in advance for the entire balance quantity of conductor for restoration of supplies. According to the appellants, such letter of credit could not be opened as the specific instructions were issued in G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 22-4-1999 which states to the effect that: "All payments under this loan Account No.4441-IN must necessarily be made only through Account Payee Cheques from Account No.8004147 and no letter of credit payments are acceptable from accounting under this loan." 14. According to the appellants, the outstanding bills to a tune of US $ 32,58,135.04 of the first respondent were cleared by March, 2000 and the first respondent was requested to restore supplies in April, 2000. According to the appellants, the delay in making the payments occurred due to the fact that the claims have been submitted to the Controller Aid, Audit and Accounts (C-AAA) for scrutiny and it is only after their admission, the Reserve Bank of India/World Bank had to be advised to release the funds to the Government of India, which is turn sanction the assistance to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and consequently, the amount has to be released in favour of the appellants, This entire process normally takes about four months. Therefore, there has been absolutely no delay or laches on the part of the appellants. Hence, in fact, the first respondent was requested by a letter dated 24-8-1999 to opt for direct payment method by World Bank through Government of India to avoid delays which the first respondent did not accept. In respect of the claim made on 19-2-2001 on 10% advance bank guarantee No.7/99, dated 15-3-1999for the full amount of US $ 905,800 with bankers, M/s. Syndicate Bank, New Nallakunta Branch, Hyderabad. Pay Order No.959973, dated 22-2-2001 for Rs.4,24, 18,614/- (Rupees four crores twenty four lakhs eighteen thousand six hundred and fourteen only) was issued by the Syndicate Bank and the same amount was credited to A.P. Transco on 3-3-2001 as per orders of this Court. Pay Order No.959973, dated 22-2-2001 for Rs.4,24, 18,614/- (Rupees four crores twenty four lakhs eighteen thousand six hundred and fourteen only) was issued by the Syndicate Bank and the same amount was credited to A.P. Transco on 3-3-2001 as per orders of this Court. A claim was lodged on 2-5-2001 on performance security bank guarantee No.5/99, dated 18-2-1999 for the full amount of US $ 4,55,163 with Bankers M/s. Syndicate Bank, New Nallakunta Branch, Hyderabad. Pay Order No.959978, dated 3-5-2001 for Rs.2,13,24,386/- (Rupees two crores thirteen lakhs twenty four thousand three hundred and eighty six only) was issued and the same was credited to the appellants on 5-5-2001. However, the first respondent approached the B.I.F.R. and ultimately the matter was referred to a Panel of Arbitrators. Therefore, having regard to the above, on behalf of the appellants, there was absolutely no delay or laches much less any breach on their part, the question of making liable for any amounts under the schemes as made by the first respondent is unsustainable and therefore, there is absolutely no basis. Further it is pointed out specifically by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that neither the Arbitrator nor the Court below have gone into the basic question as to on whose part the breach can be attributed so as to inflict any such liability. There is neither any issue nor any finding specifically in this regard, which is fatal. Therefore, in the absence of any such finding, the appellants, cannot be made liable for any of the amounts as awarded. 15. The case of the respondent is to the effect that it is only due to the specific terms and conditions as agreed to and more so it being a World Bank aided project payable in US $ and assured payments through letter of credit, the first respondent has undertaken the project. However, in spite of the same, the appellants did not adhere to the terms and the appellants erroneously terminated the agreement on 19-2-2001 and therefore the first respondent had to raise claims to which he is entitled to. However, in spite of the same, the appellants did not adhere to the terms and the appellants erroneously terminated the agreement on 19-2-2001 and therefore the first respondent had to raise claims to which he is entitled to. Further, having regard to the claims, counter-claims and the findings as arrived at by the Arbitral Tribunal and as contained in the Award where it was found that the contract between the parties was under the International Business Projects funded by the World Bank adopting Uniform Customs and Practices for documentary credit and the contract being a deemed export transaction, it provided opening letter of credit by the appellants under a specific term of contract which is vital. The respondent had furnished a bank guarantee aggregating US $ 13,60,963 towards advance payment and performance security and made all preparations necessary for effecting the supplies. And yet the letter of credit was not opened by the appellants and therefore, there is a clear breach on the part of the appellants which is basic and fundamental and amounting to repudiation of contract. That apart, there has been enormous delay on the part of the appellants in making the payments for the goods supplied. The contention as regards the documents not being marked as submitted on behalf of the appellants is not sustainable since the parties had agreed to the conduct of arbitration proceedings on affidavits and especially when the documents are not in dispute. Therefore, having regard to such finding as arrived at by the Arbitral Tribunal, there is a clear breach on the part of the appellants and thus, the appellants are bound to repay the amounts as awarded along with interest. Further, having regard to the scope of the enquiry under Section 34 of the Act, the power as conferred under Civil Court thereunder is akin to the power of judicial review of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in reviewing the decisions of the bodies which is quite limited and confined to the examining of decision making process rather than the merits of the decision. Therefore, the Court below had virtually found no factual foundation to warrant any interference of the Award. 16. The Arbitral Tribunal proceeded to consider the contract between the parties being an international business group at the instance of the World Bank in terms of Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credit. Therefore, the Court below had virtually found no factual foundation to warrant any interference of the Award. 16. The Arbitral Tribunal proceeded to consider the contract between the parties being an international business group at the instance of the World Bank in terms of Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credit. It was a deemed export transaction. As per the terms of the contract, the opening of Letter of Credit (LC) by the appellant is a vital term on furnishing the bank guarantee aggregating to U.S. $ 13,60,963 towards advance payment and performance security. The Letter of Credit was not opened by the appellant and there has been delay on its part in making payment to the goods supplied. On the non-supply of the goods by the respondent is only due to non-opening of the Letter of Credit by the appellant in spite of the extension of the validity period of bank guarantee at the instance of the appellant arises. Therefore, there has been no such opening of the Letter of Credit and further there has been delayed payments. Amongst the claims made by the respondent herein, the claim No.1 for a sum of US $ 57,710 is towards the loss incurred due to the respondents refusal to update the process in terms of the ITD and the same was rejected by the arbitrator and was duly confirmed by the Civil Court. The second claim pertaining to Rs.38,015/- towards the loss incurred by way of bank commission charges for extension of bid security, which was not accepted by the Arbitrator and duly confirmed by the Civil Court. The third claim pertaining to the US $ 1,41,120 towards the loss incurred due to raw material fluctuations on account of delay in opening the letter of credit towards 10% advance payment, which was not accepted by the Arbitrator and confirmed by the Civil Court. In regard to claim No.4 pertaining to the commission of bank guarantee in extending the validity period on account of the delay in opening the letter of credit for 10% advance payment claiming a sum of Rs.99,421/-, the same was accepted by the Arbitrator. Having regard to the extension of the bank guarantee at the instance of the appellant and the delay caused by it in releasing 10% advance and the finding on this claim was confirmed by the Civil Court. Having regard to the extension of the bank guarantee at the instance of the appellant and the delay caused by it in releasing 10% advance and the finding on this claim was confirmed by the Civil Court. The claim No.5 was for Rs.67 ,35,351/- towards the loss incurred by way of interest on account of the appellants failure to open the letter of credit be said to be erroneous. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the judgment under revision. 11. Hence, the revision is dismissed with costs. Revision petitioners are granted two months time for vacating the suit house. It is needless to say that if the revision petitioners feel that they are the owners of the property, they are entitled to file a suit for declaration of their title which shall be decided on its merits.