Judgment :- The Petitioner/original claimant has challenged Award dated 7 August, 2009 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators, pursuance to the arbitration clauses in the contract dated 21.03.1986 between the parties, which was for the earth work in formation and construction of minor bridges in Section IX for Rail Infrastructure facilities to Nhava-Sheva Port Trust. The Petitioner did led oral evidence in support of the documents. The Respondent did not lead any evidence. Note No.2 is also relevant for deciding Claim No.4A as it is directly connected with the “slushy soil”. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has restricted the arguments to Claim Nos. 1, 2, 4, 4A, 5 and counter claim Nos. 1 and 9. There is no counter Petition filed by the Respondent. 3. The parties are definitely bound by the terms and conditions of the contract, but if there is any change in the terms and conditions including the drawings and designs, the claimant/contractor is entitled to claim the compensation subject to filing supporting documents and/or otherwise agreed clause. 4. So far as Claim No.1 is concerned, the learned Arbitrator, after considering the material placed on record, awarded an amount of Rs.74,434/-, though the claim was of Rs.87,430/-. The basis of amount was the final bill prepared and accepted by the Respondent/Department. I see there is no case to interfere so far as Claim No.1 is concerned, as substantial amount has been awarded. 5. So far as Claim No.2 is concerned, it is specifically mentioned/observed, “To be paid as per the joint checking as per the various clauses of agreement”. The statement is made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that till this date there was no such joint checking and/or meeting took place and, therefore, the amount could not be adjudicated. The learned counsel for the Respondent has expressed willingness to finalise this joint checking. In view of this, it is necessary to give opportunity to both the parties to settle and finalise the amount with this regard. 6. Claim Nos. 4, 4A and 5 are interlinked and interconnected and based upon Note No.2 of Non-Schedule Item (NS Items). The learned counsel for the Respondent has expressed willingness to finalise this joint checking. In view of this, it is necessary to give opportunity to both the parties to settle and finalise the amount with this regard. 6. Claim Nos. 4, 4A and 5 are interlinked and interconnected and based upon Note No.2 of Non-Schedule Item (NS Items). Part of condition of the contract, is noted below: “Note: 1) The rate for item No.1(a), (b) and (c ) included dewatering, if any, whether done manually or by any other means and contractor shall consider this aspect while quoting the rate. 2) Work involved excavation in Marshy, Tidal, Saltpan, Creek area for which contractor will not have any claims.” 7. Claim No.4 deals with dewatering charges, Claim No. 4A deal with removal of slushy soil and Claim No.5 deal with construction and dismantling of coffer dam. The learned Arbitrator rejected Claim Nos.4 and 4A mainly by relying on the above Note. The learned counsel for the Respondent unable to point out the missing reasons revolving around the Note in question. It is necessary for the Arbitrator to observe and decide firstly that Note 2, is applicable to facts and circumstances of the case, including the change of drawings and the circumstances/reason so given by the Petitioner to claim these amounts. The reasons are missing. Therefore, for want of justification to deny such claims, a case to remand the matter for reasons and for reassessment of the material placed on record, including clauses in question is made out. 8. So far as Claim No.4A is concerned, though some reasons are provided on merits, but, as contended, the reasons and the material placed on record by the Respondent, were not sufficient to deny the claims so raised by the Petitioner for want of details of the figure so arrived at, by the learned Arbitrator. 9. Counter Claim No.1 is concerned, the learned Arbitrator has relied upon a document which was never supplied to the Petitioner, though called upon to do so. A CVC report being Respondent’s document just cannot be relied upon without giving opportunity to the Petitioner to accept its contents. It is not the case of the Arbitrator and/or the Respondent that the CVC report was admitted and/or never denied by the petitioner. The decision, therefore, so given by the learned Arbitrator, based upon unsupplied document is also unsustainable and unacceptable. It is not the case of the Arbitrator and/or the Respondent that the CVC report was admitted and/or never denied by the petitioner. The decision, therefore, so given by the learned Arbitrator, based upon unsupplied document is also unsustainable and unacceptable. 10. The other counter Claim No.9 is concerned, the learned Arbitrator has recorded “To be reconciled by both the parties” and by this, awarded no compensation. This observation itself shows that the learned Arbitrator has not applied his mind to the material placed on record, including the claim and counter claim so filed. This also means, as recorded above, for want of reconciliation and/or meeting, the parties could not finalise and/or settle the amount till this date. The submission that the Petitioner has filed present Petition and, therefore, there was no occasion for them to meet and reconcile the account, is unacceptable. The Respondent ought to have been finalised as directed by the learned Arbitrator, counter claim No.2 and counter Claim No.9 at the earliest. 11. The settlement of any amount including the claims, as well as counter claims itself include the adjustment of the amount to be awarded and/or rejection of the amount so claimed. The liberty is therefore granted to the parties to make their submissions accordingly. 12. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and as all these claims so rejected and/or granted partly and the submissions and the reason recorded are interlinked and interconnected, therefore, in the interest of justice and to expedite the Dispute so raised by the parties, I am inclined to remand the matter by keeping all points open. The learned Tribunal to reconsider on the restricted point, the claims on the basis of the available record expeditiously. 13. Resultantly the following order: ORDER (I) The Award dated 7 August 2009 is quashed and set aside. (II) The matter is remanded back for reconsideration on all issues as prayed. (III) All points are kept open. (IV) The Arbitral Tribunal to pass award/order in accordance with material available and the law, as expeditiously as possible. (V) It is made clear that Arbitral Tribunal was consisting of three members. In case all the members are not available, liberty is granted to the General Manager, Central Railway, to fill the vacancy, if any. (VI) Parties to take steps accordingly. (VII) No costs.