JUDGMENT The Petitioner, a Cooperative Housing Society, has challenged Award dated 31 March, 2010 passed by the sole Arbitrator by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). An agreement dated 20 January, 1996 was executed to repair the residential building. There arose dispute between the parties regarding the repair work. The contract was terminated by the Petitioner. A Suit was filed in the Bombay City Civil Court where the Court has referred the matter to the sole Arbitrator. An award on 30 May 2005 was passed. This Court, after hearing both the parties and by consent, set aside the award and appointed the sole Arbitrator for fresh arbitration. 2. The parties have filed their claim and counter claim and rejoinder before the Arbitrator. No evidence was led. The arbitration proceeded based on documents on record and basically of previous arbitration proceedings. The parties have filed additional documents also. 3. The operative part of the Award is as under:- “1 Re: Claim No.1: I award a sum of Rs. 6,41,971.00 (Rupees six lakh fourty one thousand nine hundred seventy one only) in favour of the Claimants and as against the Respondents. 2. Re: Claim No.13 : I award a sum of Rs.2,45,693.00 (Rupees two lakh fourty five thousand six hundred ninety three only) in favour of the Claimants and as against the Respondents. 3. I further order and direct that the aforementioned amounts be paid by the Respondents to the Claimants together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a from 1st May, 1999 within sixty days from the date of this award. I further order and direct that the in the event the Respondents fail to pay the amounts as aforementioned, the Claimants will then be entitled to recover the amounts awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a from 1st May, 1999 till payment. 4. All other claims and counter-claims rejected. 5. There will be no order as to costs.” 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, has challenged the grant of Award referring to external plaster with g uniting (Item No.17), certain adjustments and deductions by the respondents about plumbing materials and claim No.13-retention amount. No challenges made to the other part of the Award including the Petitioner's counter claim. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, has challenged the grant of Award referring to external plaster with g uniting (Item No.17), certain adjustments and deductions by the respondents about plumbing materials and claim No.13-retention amount. No challenges made to the other part of the Award including the Petitioner's counter claim. 5. So far as the grant of Item No.17, the learned Arbitrator, after noting that there is no dispute with regard to the rate but only the area and, therefore, based upon the material available on record and considering the technical nature of the work, awarded the claim on restricted area in the following terms:- “(g) Accordingly, out of 1,31,765 sq.ft of work, an area of 1507 sq.mtrs (item (I) 1011 + item (iv) 496 sq.mtrs) which is equal to 16,715 sq.ft the net work under item No.17 comes to 1,15,050 sq.ft Since the claim is for less than what is worked out, here, I would allow this claim, for the additional area of 8088 at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.ft.” 6. With regard to the adjustment and deduction by the Respondent referring to the plumbing material which admittedly still lying on site and as there was no dispute about the value of the same, after referring to the 10th R.A. Bill dated 26.07.1997 (Volume II page 246) and after considering the adjustment/calculation gave clear finding and awarded the amount, based upon the plumbing material lying on the site. The submission is that the Respondent inspite of communication to lift those plumbing material failed to do so, therefore, is not entitled for the amount. The learned Arbitrator, however, considering the totality of the matter, awarded the amount after taking note of adjustment and deduction. 7. The refund of retention amount of Rs.2,45,693/- as shown in 9th R.A. Bill based upon undisputed position that the retention amount was never returned, awarded the same by rejecting the contention that Respondent has abandoned the work and, therefore, were not entitled for the retention amount. The learned Arbitrator has also observed that various deductions have been allowed while considering the final Bill under Claim No.1. There is substantial material on record in support of the same. (Volume I page 252, Volume II page 468.). Once the contract is terminated, the question of retention of the amount for one year as contended, does not arise. 8. The learned Arbitrator has also observed that various deductions have been allowed while considering the final Bill under Claim No.1. There is substantial material on record in support of the same. (Volume I page 252, Volume II page 468.). Once the contract is terminated, the question of retention of the amount for one year as contended, does not arise. 8. The external, as well as, the stilt and general grey plaster just cannot be overlooked, specially when there is no dispute with regard to the same work done. The grant of award on that count cannot be stated to be beyond contract terms. The documents on record supports the same also. 9. The impugned award is maintained except the interest part, restricting it to be 9% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., throughout at all stages. The award is modified to this extent only. 10. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.