GHULAM MOHAMMED, J:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.11.2001 in OP No.30 of 1996 before ill Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, filed under Sections 30, 33, 15, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is brought to our notice that common order was passed by the Court below in OP Nos.30 and 17 of 1996. As against the dismissal of OP No.17 of 1996 as infructuous, CMA No.3 148 of 2004 was preferred by the appellant herein and that appeal was also dismissed on 16.8.2004. 4. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant herein is the contractor and the first respondent - Railways awarded the contract of conversion of metre gauge to broad gauge to the contractor. It appears that certain disputes had arisen between the parties and as per the terms of contract, the parties have agreed to adjudicate and resolve the disputes by the Arbitrators. Subsequently, both the parties have submitted their respective claims before the Arbitrators and upon considering the rival claims and the evidence on record, the Arbitrators passed an award dated 10.5 .1996. It is seen from the impugned order that the claims were allowed in favour of the contractor to the extent of Rs.13,45,366/- which amount was paid by Railways vide Pay Order No.84l773 dated 27.6.1996 and accepted by the contractor. 5. Admittedly, the contractor received the said amount, but he had set up the claim that he had received the amount under duress and coercion. The contractor filed OP No.30 of 1996 to the extent his claims were disallowed by the Arbitrators. In fact, the Contractor had admittedly issued the letter of undertaking to the Railways dated 26.6.1996, which reads as under: "I accept the award as rendered in full and final settlement of all our claims against this contract. I further request you to kindly arrange for the payment of the awarded amount in terms of Para-1276-E of the Indian Railways without approaching the Court of law for making the award a rule of Court. You are aware that our claims are pending for more than 10 years and we have been losing interest on the blocked capital amount. Hence, I request you to kindly arrange payment in terms of Para-l 276-E at an early date." 6. You are aware that our claims are pending for more than 10 years and we have been losing interest on the blocked capital amount. Hence, I request you to kindly arrange payment in terms of Para-l 276-E at an early date." 6. A plain reading of the above letter given by the contractor shows that the contractor accepted the awarded amount in full and final settlement and the Railways had paid the amount vide pay order dated 27.6.1996. The contractor has set up the plea of coercion and fraud as an afterthought. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Railways has drawn our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pooran Chand Nangia v. National Fertilizers Ltd., (2003) 8 SCC 245, wherein it was held that when once the person concerned/contractor received the money which was due to him under the award and once the contractor had submitted to the award unequivocally and without reservation, it is not open to him to challenge the award. If he desired to challenge the award, he should have reserved his right to do so, which he did not. 8. In the instant case, the contractor had received the money and not reserved his right to challenge the same. He cannot now be permitted to agitate that he is entitled to disallowed claims having accepted the money due under the award without demur at the relevant time or under protest. In the above circumstances and following the ratio laid down in the above decision of the Apex Court, we find no merit in the appeal. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the fee of learned Standing Counsel for first respondent - Railways is fixed at Rs.l5,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only).