Judgment ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, A.C.J: Appellant insured with the respondent the stock lying at the wire house, that got damaged during flood Surveyor surveyed the damage and submitted a report. However, the Insurance Company did not accept the claim submitted by the appellant that resulted in a dispute referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. Initially, the Insurance Company offered a sum of Rs.1890985 that the appellant did not accept. The Tribunal was constituted by three senior insurance people. They held seven meetings, considered the pleadings and ultimately awarded a sum of Rs.4160286 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum in case of failure in making payment of the same within a stipulated period. The appellant by their advocate’s letter dated January 5, 2004 asked the Insurance Company to make payment of the same. The contents of the letter are quoted below: “Pursuant to the Award passed by the Learned Joint Arbitrators on 30th December 2003 in the above arbitration proceedings awarding Rs.41,60,286/- in favour of our clients above named we on behalf of our clients request you to kindly make payment of the said amount to us as their Advocates or directly to our clients under advice to us forthwith. Needless to mention that a copy of the said award was handed over to your counsel, Mr. S. Sarkar who was present on 30th December, 2003 when the award was passed.” Insurance Company accepted the award and made payment of the same that the respondent received without any protest. However, the printed receipt in prescribed format appearing at page-258 would show the words “partial satisfaction” that were not scored out. The Insurance Company, by a letter received by the appellant on February 26, 2004, forwarded the cheque in settlement of the above claim in “full and final”. The respondent received the same on the above mentioned date as we find from the page 259 of the paper book. No contemporaneous protest was made by the appellant. In this backdrop, the appellant filed an application challenging the award on March 29, 2004 appearing at page 1-18 of the paper book (without annexures). Cursory glance to the said petition would unequivocally show suppression of material fact, the appellant in paragraph 18 admitted receipt of the amount however, claimed, it was without prejudice to the rights and contentions and in part satisfaction. Cursory glance to the said petition would unequivocally show suppression of material fact, the appellant in paragraph 18 admitted receipt of the amount however, claimed, it was without prejudice to the rights and contentions and in part satisfaction. Paragraph 18 being relevant herein is quoted below: “The respondent has accepted the said award and by its letter dated February 25, 2004 has made payment of the awarded sum of Rs.41,60,286/- to the petitioner which amount has been duly accepted by the petitioner without prejudice to its rights and contentions and in part satisfaction of its claim in the arbitration proceedings.” Appellant purposely did not annex the documents appearing at page 257, 258 and 259 of the paper book. The Insurance Company contested the proceeding disclosing the said three documents in their affidavit. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, the Insurance Company categorically contended, the said sum of Rs.4160286 was paid in full and final payment that the appellant received. The appellant did not deny existence of those three documents appearing at page 257-259, in their affidavit in reply. The learned Single Judge, by judgment and order dated April 4, 2014, dismissed the said application with cost assessed at Rs.2 lakhs. His Lordship made strong comments as against the appellant as also the advocate espousing their cause. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred the instant appeal that we heard on the above mentioned date. Mr. Joy Saha learned Counsel would represent the appellant before us. He contended, right to challenge the award was given in the statute. Such statutory right could not be taken away because ofacceptance of the awarded sum. In this regard, he would refer to page-258 of the paper book to show, the words “part satisfaction” were not scored out. According to him, the appellant never signed the receipt in full and final settlement of their claim. He was however, unable to give any plausible explanation for nondisclosure of those three important documents, at the initial stage. Commenting on the award, Mr. Saha would refer to the minutes of the meeting of the Tribunal where the seventh sitting was fixed for further argument and there was no scope for the Tribunal to publish the award that too, after a private discussion held with the surveyor in absence of the representative of the parties. Commenting on the award, Mr. Saha would refer to the minutes of the meeting of the Tribunal where the seventh sitting was fixed for further argument and there was no scope for the Tribunal to publish the award that too, after a private discussion held with the surveyor in absence of the representative of the parties. According to him, the Arbitral Tribunal could not have held private discussion with the surveyor and published their award without giving opportunity to the parties to argue the matter on merits. He would refer to the award appearing at pages 232-240 of the paper book wherein we find, as many as seven sittings were held and the last meeting was held on December 18, 2003 whereas re-joinder of the claimant to the respondent’s counter statement was filed on December 12, 2003. Mr. Saha would submit, the re-joinder was filed just on the eve of seventh sitting. Hence, Tribunal should have granted opportunity to the parties to make their argument that opportunity was never given. He would also refer to paragraph 11 and 13 of the award. In paragraph 11 the Tribunal observed, on the basis of the datas provided by the parties, the Tribunal felt that it was in a position to give an award and as such no further hearing would be necessary. In paragraph 13 the Tribunal recorded discussion held with the surveyor seeking clarification from him on the survey report dated May 12, 2001, that discussion was held in absence of the parties. Mr. Saha would contend, the procedure adopted by the Tribunal was unheard of and would be violative of principles of natural justice and thus contrary to the public policy and was liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned Judge erred in appreciating so. Mr. Saha would rely upon a Division Bench decision of this Court, A and J Main and Company Engineers Private Limited Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2006 Volume-IV Calcutta High Courts Notes page-178, to support his contention, there was no impediment in executing a money decree reserving the right to prefer an appeal for the sum that was disallowed. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would rely upon a Single Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Govindji Jevat and Company Vs. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would rely upon a Single Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Govindji Jevat and Company Vs. Shree Saraswati Mills Limited reported in All India Reporter 1982 Bombay Page76 and an unreported Single Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Goel Associates Vs. Din. Cooperation Group Housing Society to contend, party accepting payment of the award was stopped from challenging the same. We have considered the rival contentions. Even if we give credence to the argument of Mr. Saha on merit, we would still not be in a position to entertain his appeal because of deliberate gross suppression on the part of the appellant. The letter of the advocate could not be said to be a mistake. The letter appearing at page-257 did not give any hint at all that the respondent was dissatisfied with the award. The learned advocate could have asked for the awarded sum reserving the right of the appellant to prefer an appeal. The decision in the case of A and J Main and Company Engineers Private Limited (supra) would definitely support the appellant had there been any reservation of liberty, it was not so. The forwarding letter appearing at page 259 was also clear to the extent, the cheque was being sent in full and final settlement. The receipt at page 258 cannot be read in isolation. On a combined reading of all three documents, we feel, omission to score out the words “partial satisfaction” was a sheer mistake and could not be used to support the application. Even if there was any remote possibility, such possibility was blocked by deliberate suppression. The learned Judge made strong comments that we find, apt in the present case. Leaving it to us, we may not have used such strong words however, we would definitely share the same view that the learned Judge expressed in His Lordship’s judgment and order. We do not find any scope to interfere with any part of the judgment including the order for payment of cost for Rs.2 lakhs. This would be a caution to the frivolous litigants who would deliberately mislead the Court yet, ask for relief. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. We however, do not wish to impose any further cost although the appeal would deserve so.