Judgment : M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. 1. This intra-Court appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing O.P. No.52 of 2003, seeking to set aside the arbitral award dated 5.9.2002. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also for the first respondent. 3. The short facts leading to the filing of the appeal can be stated thus:- (i) The first respondent was awarded with a contract of carrying out the work of forming a four lane link road from Pallavaram to join old Mahabalipuram road from KM 0/0 to 10/620. The value of the work was Rs.20,11,73,836/-which was 4.90 per cent above the estimated rate. When the contract was entered into on 18.6.1999, the time for completion of work was fixed as 18 months from the date of handing over of the site i.e. from 28.6.1999. The execution of the work was commenced on 28.6.1999 and the same was completed on 28.12.2000. (ii) While the work was in progress, two additional works were to be executed. The first respondent raised a dispute as to the rates quoted for the supplemental work and made certain claim in respect of the said work. Since it was denied, the matter was referred to the arbitral proceedings. The Arbitral Tribunal, while conducting the proceedings, after looking into the claims and the evidence adduced thereon, awarded a sum of Rs.50,17,500/- in respect of claim No.1, a sum of Rs.11,86,060/- in respect of claim No.2 and a sum of Rs.6,24,094/-in respect of claim No.3, thus totalling a sum of Rs.68,22,584/- with simple interest @ 18% per annum from the date of award till payment. (iii) Aggrieved over the said award, the appellant took the matter before this Court by filing O.P. No.52 of 2003, whereby the award was sought to be set aside. On enquiry, learned Single Judge was of the view that the appellant did not make out the case for setting aside the award and hence dismissed the O.P. Under such circumstances, this appeal has arisen before this Court. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, it is true, there was an original agreement entered into between the parties for the work stipulated thereon on 18.6.1999. It is not in controversy that the work was completed as found in the agreement. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, it is true, there was an original agreement entered into between the parties for the work stipulated thereon on 18.6.1999. It is not in controversy that the work was completed as found in the agreement. Pending the execution of the said work, two additional works were to be done and hence, on 27.9.2000, a supplemental agreement was entered into in that regard as to the rates quoted therein. The first respondent has agreed to the said agreement and also signed, pursuant to which he also worked. Now, it is too late for the first respondent to raise any dispute as regards the rates before the Arbitrator, which was not looked into by the Arbitrator. 5. Learned counsel also took this Court to the letter of the department dated 27.3.2000 and also subsequent letter dated 31.8.2000, whereby the rates were fixed. Insofar as the supplemental agreement was concerned, it was signed by the first respondent. Therefore, under the Contract law, he is bound by it. Once there was a concluded contract, all attempts should be made to regulate the contract and it should not be terminated to ones advantage. When all these were brought to the notice of the Arbitrator, they are not looked into when the award was passed. When the appellant put forth all the submissions and placed all the relevant materials before the learned Single Judge, they were not adverted to by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has taken an erroneous view and it has got to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has put forth his sincere attempt for sustaining the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is not in controversy that the first respondent was awarded with a contract for forming a four lane link road from Pallavaram to join old Mahabalipuram road from KM 0/0 to 10/620. This contract was entered into on 18.6.1999. It is also not in dispute that the value, which was fixed therein, was agreed by the parties. The contract dated 18.6.1999 was also completed. Pending the same, two works were to be done and it was also given to the first respondent. This contract was entered into on 18.6.1999. It is also not in dispute that the value, which was fixed therein, was agreed by the parties. The contract dated 18.6.1999 was also completed. Pending the same, two works were to be done and it was also given to the first respondent. It is also not in dispute that the same was also completed by the first respondent, pending the arbitral proceedings and also before the learned Single Judge. 8. The point for consideration is whether the supplemental agreement entered into between the parties would be binding on the first respondent or not? In the instant case, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is that when actually there was a supplemental agreement, which was entered into between the parties, the first respondent having signed the agreement where he has agreed to the rates stipulated therein, he cannot now be permitted to regulate or permitted to state that it would not bind on them. 9. The Court is of the considered opinion that this contention cannot be countenanced in view of the materials available. Now as could be seen from the available materials, originally the supplemental agreement, according to the appellant, was entered into on 27.9.2000. It is quite seen that there was a communication continuously from the date of agreement and the agreement itself was signed by the first respondent under protest and it is quite clear that though the agreement was signed which has been done under protest, it should indicate the fact, there is no consensus between the parties in respect of the supplemental agreement. 10. As could be seen from the materials, the first respondent was to get amount for the first work, which has been concluded. Now the contention put forth by the appellants side that the rates found in the supplemental agreement would be binding on the parties cannot be countenanced, in which the appellant rested its case, as the agreement was not a concluded one. The rate which was actually agreed by the parties earlier cannot prevail. The arbitrator had taken into consideration all the contentions and looked into the materials and made the award as referred to above. 11. The rate which was actually agreed by the parties earlier cannot prevail. The arbitrator had taken into consideration all the contentions and looked into the materials and made the award as referred to above. 11. Learned Single Judge has put forth all his attention over the same and came to the correct conclusion that there was no supplemental agreement and thus the arbitral award was perfectly correct and not to be disturbed. The Court is unable to notice any infirmity either in the award or in the order of the learned Single Judge, calling for interference. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.