Judgment Tapen Sen, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment delivered by Sri D.C.Kar, Addl. District Judge (11th Court) Alipore, in Misc. Judicial case no. 24 of 2012 whereby and whereunder while allowing the appeal filed by the Respondents, West Bengal State Electricity Dist. Co. Ltd. (earlier known as West Bengal State Electricity Board) he allowed the Appeal and set aside the award dated 30.4.2011 passed by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal and held that the Appellants herein were not entitled to claim price adjustment on any portion of the works involving Japanese Currency “Yen” and that the Respondents were entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 41,76, 93, 410/- being the retention money said to have been paid in excess to them. The Ld. Judge also directed the appellants herein to pay a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs being Costs of the proceedings before the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal and further pay Costs of Rs. 1 lakh being Costs of the proceedings before the court of the ld. District Judge. 2. The facts of the case are as follows:- A) The Respondents herein were earlier known as West Bengal State Electricity Board but after restructuring w.e.f. 1.4.2007, it came to be known as West Bengal State Electricity Dist. Co. Ltd. (WBSEDCL) B) Construction of two Rock- Filled Dams with Central Clay core for upper and lower reservoirs with a live storage of 13 million Cu meter each, twin water conductor through tunnel shafts, and underground powerhouse 157 x 225 x 48 (m) to accommodate four numbers reversible pump turbines of 225 mw each, an underground transformer cavern with an access tunnel, 400 kv gas insulated-sub- station linked through a cable tunnel being lot-4 Project and concerning the main civil works of Purulia Pumped Storage project (capacity 4x 225 mw) was the subject matter of the said project. C) The main activities of the project was started from 12.3.2002. Two numbers of 400 kv double circuit transmission lines had been developed connecting Durgapur and Arambagh with the said project to transmit and receive bulk power. The infrastructure of the office building, township consisting of 302 numbers of quarters with utility structure etc. had been built up in the project area. Two numbers of 400 kv double circuit transmission lines had been developed connecting Durgapur and Arambagh with the said project to transmit and receive bulk power. The infrastructure of the office building, township consisting of 302 numbers of quarters with utility structure etc. had been built up in the project area. D) In order to set up its 4x 225 mw units of the said Purulia Pumped Storage project, on Kisto Bazar nala in the District of Purulia, West Bengal, the Respondents herein invited International Competitive Bids under JBIC (formally OCEF) loan no. ID-P 98 dated 28.2.1995 for construction and completion of main civil works as specified in the Bids Specification entitled “Lot – 4 Main Civil Works for Purulia Pump Storage Project”. E) The Appellants herein Taisei Corporation, Japan participated in the said Tender vide their proposal dated 8.9.1999 and the Respondents herein accepted the Bid and awarded the contract to them vide their letter of award no. ACE/PPSP/ICB/Lot-4/426 dated 27.6.2001 which was also accepted by the Appellants herein by their letter no. TC 2001270601 dated 27.6.2001. F) The said contract was allotted vide contract no. WBSEB/PPSP/ICB/Lot 4 /2001-02 for the contract price of Indian Rupees 4,116,043,254.00 (4 Billion 116 million 43 thousand 254 only) and of foreign currency, Yen of Rs. 7,781,458,650.00 (seven billion 781 million 458 thousand 650 only) G) The project was completed within the stipulated date of completion i.e. 11.2.2007. 3. It appears that a dispute arose between the parties relating to the payment of “Price adjustments” in terms of Clause 70.1 read with the connected table of weighing co-efficient under para 15 and sources of indices under para 16 and price adjustments formulae under para 17 of the Appendix to Tender (Clause 4.2) of the contract document. According to the case of the appellants herein, the modality of operation for Price Adjustments Clause was settled in a joint meeting with the “Engineer” and “consultants” by them as per the provisions of the Contract on 6th to 8th May, 2003. The Respondents herein paid interim bills along with price adjustments portion upto March 2005 duly certified by them. The Respondents herein then informed and raised the objection on 25.6.2005 on such payment of price adjustment and suspended further payment for want of approval of the West Bengal State Electricity Board. 4. The Respondents herein paid interim bills along with price adjustments portion upto March 2005 duly certified by them. The Respondents herein then informed and raised the objection on 25.6.2005 on such payment of price adjustment and suspended further payment for want of approval of the West Bengal State Electricity Board. 4. By their letter dated 6.1.2006, the Respondents informed the claimants that the modality of the price adjustments which was arrived at in the meetings held on 6th to 8th of May, 2003 had not been approved by WBSEB due to wrong application of the price adjustment formula and that a sum of INR 41,76,93,410.00 would be recovered from the bill of the Appellants. Thereafter no further payments were made by the Respondents herein towards price adjustments from April 2005 onwards. Several meetings were held and representations filed by the Appellants herein explaining the true interpretation and the correct application of the formulae of the price adjustment but since nothing happened the appellants herein finally notified the matter for reference of the dispute to the Review Board as per Clause 67 of the Contract. 5. Before the said Dispute Review Board, the Appellants herein contended that according to Clause 70.1, they were entitled to “Price Adjustments” for which the contract provided the mechanism under para 17 itself. According to them, the formula itself clearly stipulated that the adjustment factor “P” was to be applied on “the estimated value of work” and such estimated value would mean the value of the whole work which included the entire payment both in INR and JPY (to be converted to INR to bring to same base). They further contended that all weighted coefficients, constituting the entire subhead items of work were incorporated in the formula for calculation of the price adjustment factor. According to the Appellants, the price adjustment factor was to be applied to the contract price/estimated value of work which included payments in both currencies and the stand taken by the WBSEDCL to apply INR on the value of works done, was incorrect. 6. The Respondents however claimed that the WBSEB had accepted the bid of the Appellants for a sum of INR 4,116, 043,254 and Japanese YEN 7,781,458,650.00 and that no escalation for price adjustment had been submitted by the Appellants relating to the foreign currency portion. 6. The Respondents however claimed that the WBSEB had accepted the bid of the Appellants for a sum of INR 4,116, 043,254 and Japanese YEN 7,781,458,650.00 and that no escalation for price adjustment had been submitted by the Appellants relating to the foreign currency portion. Accordingly they communicated their decision on 3.7.2006 that no price adjustment should be applied on the total value of work except INR portion only. This letter is dated 03.7.2006 when the Contract itself was awarded on 27.6.2001. 7. It is in the background of the aforementioned facts and circumstances that it would perhaps be necessary to briefly quote the price adjustment formulae as appearing in Clause 17, Chapter 4 of the contract documents and which reads as follows:- “17. Price adjustment formulae. The amount to be added to or deducted from the Interim Payment Certificates in respect of changes in cost and legislation shall be determined from formulae for each or the currencies of payment and each of the types of construction work to be performed. The formulae will be of the following general type: LL FU CE ST MI P = a+b ---- + c+d ---- + e ---- + f ---- + g ---- + h LLo FUo CEo STo MIo Where: a : a fixed coefficient (=0.15) P = the adjustment factor to be applied to the estimated value of the work categoried in Appendix to Tender of the Contract, for each corresponding six (6) months period, determined in accordance with Sub-clause 60.2 (b) and (d) c = Weighted coefficient for Foreign Labour (No price adjustment) h. = Weighted coefficient for Equipment (no price adjustment).” 8. Upon a bare perusal of the aforementioned formula and the words “estimated value of the works”, one cannot proceed to interpret “P” to mean that it will apply only to the INR portion. There is no such indication in Clause 17 and therefore, if one were to say that it will apply only to the INR portion of the work, it would mean going beyond the formula itself. It is at this juncture that we would like to point out that before the Arbitral Tribunal, the issue as to whether “estimated value of work” could be split up into INR and JPY was also considered and the said Tribunal, while dealing with the submission of Mr. It is at this juncture that we would like to point out that before the Arbitral Tribunal, the issue as to whether “estimated value of work” could be split up into INR and JPY was also considered and the said Tribunal, while dealing with the submission of Mr. Bhaskar Mitra (who was appearing on behalf of the Respondents herein) stated that there was nothing to indicate in Clause 17 that the estimated value could be split up into INR or JPY for purposes of application of the formula. Let it be recorded that the Ld. Tribunal, in para 15.1 observed as follows:- 15.1. Mr. Gupta in his written notes of further submissions filed on 08.11.2009 at page 1 para 2 admitted the proposition that the expression ‘estimated value of work done is the sum total of the estimated value of the work in INR and the estimated value of the work done in JPY (emphasis supplied). The meaning of the expression estimated value of work, thus, is the sum total of the whole work done. 9. The Ld. Dispute Review Board also dealt with this matter extensively because even before the said Board, the Appellants herein had contended that it was clear from the formula that the adjustment Factor “P” was to be applied on the “estimated value of works” which means the value of the entire work including payments both in INR and JPY. The Ld. Dispute Review Board, observed, and in our opinion correctly, that there was no scope in interpreting “P” to be applied on a part value of work in INR payment only because there was no such stipulation in Clause 17. It was in that background that the Review Dispute Board held that the Respondents herein had misled the Board in total violation of the basic structure of the formula given in Clause 17 and accordingly held that the Respondents were not entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 47,78,93,410 from the Appellants towards price adjustments upto March 2005. It was in that background that the Review Dispute Board held that the Respondents herein had misled the Board in total violation of the basic structure of the formula given in Clause 17 and accordingly held that the Respondents were not entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 47,78,93,410 from the Appellants towards price adjustments upto March 2005. They also held that the Appellants were entitled to receive pending payments towards price adjustments on or after April, 2005 upto the actual date of completion of work alongwith interest on the withheld amounts @ 3.5% per annum from the due dates of payments time to time to actual date of payments on verification of Annexure “A” which was attached with the written notes of arguments submitted by the appellants wherein vide Memo No. dated 26.9.2007, the recommendation of the Board was published on 5.10.2007. 10. Let it be recorded that pursuant to an agreement between the parties (Appellants and Respondents), it had been agreed to refer the dispute arising between themselves to the Arbitral Tribunal in terms of Clause 67 of the Terms and Conditions of the Contract. In other words, reference of the dispute to arbitration proceedings was agreed upon by and between the parties both by contract as well as by consent and they therefore themselves chose the forum and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. The dispute was confined only to the extent of interpretation of the question as to whether the formulae as laid down in Paragraph 17 would apply to the estimated value of the works comprising of both INR and JPY. Before the Tribunal, the Respondents took up a plea that the factor ‘P’ has to be applied only to the INR part and cannot be applied to the JPY part. According to Respondents, the contract was a dual currency contract and without any specific provision to treat the contract as a single currency contract, the ‘P’ factor has to be applied only to the INR portion. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents before us have also attempted to make out a case that the Bill of Quantities shows two different currencies and that contract price and price adjustment being two different factors, the formula for price adjustment can be applied only to the INR portion. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents before us have also attempted to make out a case that the Bill of Quantities shows two different currencies and that contract price and price adjustment being two different factors, the formula for price adjustment can be applied only to the INR portion. Learned Counsel for the Respondents have further argued before us that the estimated value of work would mean the estimated INR value of the work which would exclude the JPY portion because the co-efficient in ‘a’, ‘c’ and ‘h’ are non-variable factors. Therefore by applying the ‘P’ factor to those portions, the JPY portion will stand varied. We are at a loss to understand such a submission because the formula itself has taken care of these aspects and such a formula was known to all the parties at the time when they entered into the contract. Therefore, attempting to virtually “perform a surgical intervention” of a clause of the contract already signed after disputes were raised cannot be permitted because the parties are bound by the contract. 12. Learned Counsel for the parties further submitted that the price adjustment application against foreign currency portion was never agreed upon between the parties and therefore the same cannot be permitted. We are again not able to appreciate such a stand because even assuming that the price adjustment and rates thereof were not agreed upon, even then it would not change the nature of the dispute because the question of a belated “approval” would hardly be relevant because the parties had already adhered themselves to the contract and were bound by them. 13. The matter was then taken up before the Arbitral Tribunal and the Award relating to the interpretation of the words price adjustments was dealt with extensively because Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, although having admitted in his written notes of further submissions (see Para 15.1 of the Award) that the estimated value of work is the sum total of the whole work done both in INR and JPY, had attempted to contend that for the purpose of application of the price adjustments, the formula was to apply separately on the INR part and again separately on the JPY part . 14. 14. Learned Counsel for the Board has attempted to strenuously make out a case that the contract price and price adjustment are two different things and that the formula is only for price adjustment. Learned Counsel has submitted that in the bill of quantities, two different currencies were mentioned. According to him, for the purpose of application of price adjustment, the formula is to be applied separately on the INR part and separately on the JPY part. In our opinion, such a submission will be completely contrary to what Clause 17 of the Contract Act has stipulated. 15. In the background of the aforementioned submissions, the Ld. Arbitrators held, and in our opinion, correctly, that in the absence of any specific provision defining estimated value to mean splitting up INR and JPY, the estimated value should be treated to mean as the value of the work performed for a particular period comprising the value of the entire work done and therefore if Mr. Gupta’s arguments was to be accepted, it would amount to adding words to the terms of the contract. The tribunal also correctly observed that “In case Mr. Gupta’s argument is to be accepted, in that event while applying the formulae, assuming that the formulae could be applied separately on INR, then ‘c’ and ‘h’ are to be excluded. Though coefficient ‘a’ is fixed component, may comprise both INR and JPY and therefore, is to be split up for JPY and INR. It is not known how much of this fixed coefficient ‘a’ comprising of 0.15 in each of the categories of the four works would comprise of INR component and JPY component of price. Whether it would be 10+5 or 5+10 or may vary in respect of one or the other or each of the works it is not known. And if it is so done, in that event it would be impracticable to value coefficient ‘a’. Similarly, the formulae would have excluded coefficient ‘c’ if it was meant for INR only and not for JPY. Similarly, it would be difficult to work out value of the coefficients ‘c’, ‘d’, ‘f’ and ‘g’ which might have JPY component and figure out the value of the respective coefficients in the formulae. Then again equipment coefficient ‘h’ is wholly non-variable whether it comprises of INR or JPY. Similarly, it would be difficult to work out value of the coefficients ‘c’, ‘d’, ‘f’ and ‘g’ which might have JPY component and figure out the value of the respective coefficients in the formulae. Then again equipment coefficient ‘h’ is wholly non-variable whether it comprises of INR or JPY. Therefore, it should have been altogether omitted if it was meant for application to INR only. At the same time, it may be noted that if no price adjustment is allowed on components involving foreign currency; in that event it would not at all be necessary to apply the formulae to the JPY part and should have been omitted altogether. It would be impossible to take such a view without adding to or altering or modifying or substituting the formulae.” The Arbitration Tribunal, therefore correctly observed that the submission of Mr. Gupta seemed to point to absurdity in mathematical algebraic formulae because if his submissions were to be accepted it would be something which would mean addition or replacement or alteration or substitution of the formula itself which was unreasonable and unjustified. The Ld. Tribunal also dealt with the manner in which the formula had been worked out and observed in para 15.8 as follows: “These formulae have been worked out mathematically with algebraic formulae in order to work out price adjustment within the framework of the condition providing for fixed and non-variable items. In the meeting, between the Engineer and the contractor held on 6-8th May, 2003, this was so interpreted as developed by the consultants, who are experts in the field and who have been named, within the conditions of the contract viz.: the general condition governing the contract in Part-I, which are as stated in the “General Constructions of Contract of Works of Civil Engineering Construction published by the Federation International Docs Ingenieurs-Conseils (FIDIC) Part-II thereof provides that both part-I and part-II together comprises that conditions governing the rights and obligations of the contractor; and in case of inconsistency between conditions contained in Part-I and Part-II, then the conditions of Part-II shall prevail over Part-I. The appendix to tender containing the formulae provided by FIDIC has not been modified. This seems to be an internationally accepted formula which is followed as a model formula to resolve such exigencies/contingencies. Several clauses have been modified or deleted or added. This seems to be an internationally accepted formula which is followed as a model formula to resolve such exigencies/contingencies. Several clauses have been modified or deleted or added. In case it was agreed between the parties that this formulae should be adapted with modification for the purpose of applying only to INR excluding JPY, in that event such modification/revision could have been incorporated in the conditions of contract modifying the formula. In the absence of any such modification, it is not possible for us to see any reason or substance in the submission of Mr. Gupta to the extent that it would not apply to JPY part of the estimated value of the work and has to be applied separately to INR or JPY, as the case may be.” 16. Having considered the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Tribunal correctly observed that the formula cannot be interpreted in a manner not provided for in the Contract. Finally, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the formula was to be applied to the estimated value of work comprising each of the currencies and the factor “P” is to be applied for each of the types of works in respect of the estimated value of the entire work for the period comprising of both the currencies. Accordingly the Ld. Tribunal held that the Appellants were entitled to the reliefs it had claimed and also held that the Appellants were entitled to receive and the Respondents were liable to pay interest together with the rate of interest already allowed by the Dispute Review Board. Costs to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs were also allowed without any interest if the same was paid within the three months from the Award. The Ld. Tribunal finally, while affirming the decision of the Dispute Review Board, directed the Respondents to make payments mentioned in P-6 which was made part of the Award together with interest thereon within a period of 3 months from the date together with costs as stated above and in default, the principal amounts and costs were made to carry interest @12% per annum simple from the date of the Award till the date of the realization. 17. The aforementioned award was published on 30.4.2011 and this became a subject of challenge before the Ld. 11th Addl. District Judge, Alipore in Misc. Judicial Case 24 of 2012. 17. The aforementioned award was published on 30.4.2011 and this became a subject of challenge before the Ld. 11th Addl. District Judge, Alipore in Misc. Judicial Case 24 of 2012. In our opinion, having read the judgment, we must say that the same proceeded on a completely wrong approach. It totally misdirected itself when, in para 13, it proceeded to enter into the maize and thicket of the matter by erroneously holding that the ld. Tribunal had not proceeded to decide whether the contract permits price adjustments in the JPY currency of contract price. It totally forgot and ignored the correct interpretation of the words “estimated value of works” and the application of the “P” factor. If we may say so, the Ld. Judge veered of at a tangent by absolutely incorrectly stating that - “Ld. Tribunal began with the assuming as correct that which was to be proved, and assumed that the issue between the parties is – whether the estimated value of work means both INR and JPY estimated values of work, which was not in issue at all. There is no dispute that the estimated value of work is the sum of the estimated value of work done in INR and the estimated value of work done in JPY” The Ld. Judge completely misdirected himself here. He completely forgot that the dispute as per the formula itself was as to whether adjustment factor “P” was to be applied on the “estimated value of work” and such estimated value meant the value of the whole work which included payment both in INR and JPY. It was nobody’s case that there was no dispute that the estimated value of work is the sum of the estimated value of work done in the INR and estimated value of work done in JPY. This court is not at all able to understand as to from where did the Ld. Judge imagine such an issue which was not an issue at all. The Ld. Judge, himself confused and confounded the issues by observing that the award of the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal indicated a wrong approach to the disputes involved. If anybody had committed a wrong approach it was the Ld. Judge and not the Arbitral Tribunal. What is equally preposterous is the manner in which the Ld. The Ld. Judge, himself confused and confounded the issues by observing that the award of the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal indicated a wrong approach to the disputes involved. If anybody had committed a wrong approach it was the Ld. Judge and not the Arbitral Tribunal. What is equally preposterous is the manner in which the Ld. Judge has proceeded to deal with the formula of para 17 of the impugned Judgment when he states that— “estimated value cannot be determined by applying the adjustment factor “P” of the formula” although in para 22 he himself states that “let me at the outset say that the estimated value of work is the estimated value of permanent works in both the currencies which constitutes the total contract price, and that this is an admitted position”. Having said so, he could not have proceeded to say in para 29 that the formula will have to be evolved on the basis of and being guided by the example of the general formula. In other words, in paras 29 and 30, the Ld. Judge, without particular reference to Clause 17 attempted to evolve his own formula which was nobody’s case and which he could not have done thereby enlarging the scope of the dispute. The manner in which the Ld. Judge has proceeded, goes to show that apart from making unwarranted comments against the Arbitral Tribunal, he has proceeded to substitute his own views thereby creating a third case. Moreover, the parties were bound by the contract and if one of the parties chose not to follow the contract strictly then the Arbitral Tribunal has no option but to give a meaningful interpretation to all the Clauses of the Contract and the action of the Ld. Judge in saying that the formula should have been applied in a different manner means substituting his own views. In a judgment passed in the case of Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Reported in (2010) 11 SCC 296 it has been held paras 43 and 44 that the findings and award of the umpire are rendered after considering the materials on record and giving due weightage to all the terms of the contract and by calling the same to be erroneous, is highly unfair to the umpire. One may at the highest say that one would have preferred another construction but no one can substitute his own views. In the instant case, the Ld. District Judge has attempted to evolve his own formula by opening his reasoning with a prejudiced mind by saying that the Ld. Tribunal made a wrong approach. The documents and the agreements were all parts of the records and both the Dispute Review Board as well as the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal duly dealt with them extensively and therefore such an observation of the Ld. District Judge was clearly perverse. In fact, he committed an error of his own jurisdiction because by evolving his own formula in paras 29 to 33 of the impugned judgment, he clearly wandered outside the matter that were referred to him and therefore he committed a jurisdictional error because he attempted to widen his jurisdiction by deciding a question otherwise than what was the dispute between the parties. Such an action has been deprecated by a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Associated Engg. Co. vs. Govt. of AP reported in (1991) 4 SCC 93 . 18. What is equally preposterous is the manner in which the Ld. District Judge has attempted to make out a completely a third case in para 32 and has proceeded to evolve his own formula for the INR portion and a separate formula for the JPY portion. He has committed the same mistake in para 35 and in para 36 also. 19. The learned Judge could not have sat in appeal over the award because his power is limited. From the award we find that it is conclusive and there is nothing on record to show that the Arbitral Tribunal had acted beyond its authority or mis-conducted ‘itself’. Therefore, the adjudication made by the Arbitral Tribunal will be considered binding between the parties and specially more so because such a Tribunal was selected by the parties themselves. It was therefore not open to the learned District Judge to speculate and say that a particular formula should have been applied in a different manner and not in the manner as recorded in the agreement. We are of the view, therefore, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Grid Corporation Ltd. of Odisha Vs. We are of the view, therefore, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Grid Corporation Ltd. of Odisha Vs. Balasore Technical School reported in (2009) 9 SCC 552 that when the dispute was within the scope of the arbitration clause, it was no part of the province of the learned District Judge to enter into the merits of the disputes by substituting his own views. He could have only interfered if the Arbitral Tribunal had wandered outside the contract and had dealt with matters not allotted to it. If it had done so then it would have committed a jurisdictional error. We do not find any such jurisdictional error having been committed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. Moreover, when the findings and the reasoning given by the learned Arbitral Tribunal have been rendered after meticulously considering all materials on record, it was not proper on the part of the learned Judge to have called the same to be erroneous. We must bear in mind that in an agreement between the parties to a contract, both parties must perform their respective promises and if a particular party chooses not to do so, the Arbitral Tribunal has to give a meaningful interpretation and / or a meaningful direction by taking into consideration all relevant clauses of the contract. In the instant case this is exactly what the Arbitral Tribunal has done. We cannot also lose track of the fact that Clause 17 laid down a specific formula. That formula had been agreed to be acted upon and the words “estimated value of work” has therefore been logically interpreted to mean that it would be the total value of the work taking into consideration both the currencies because it is a dual currency contract and not a single currency contract. Therefore, the learned Judge had no authority to alter the formula and give and/or prescribe different formulas for different currencies. Reference for such a proposition can be taken from a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Associated Engineering Company Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1991) 4 SCC 93 . 20. For the reasons stated above this court is clearly of the view that the Judgment rendered by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore passed in Misc. Judicial Case no. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1991) 4 SCC 93 . 20. For the reasons stated above this court is clearly of the view that the Judgment rendered by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore passed in Misc. Judicial Case no. 24 of 2012 suffers from jurisdictional error, it cannot be sustained because it has gone beyond the parameters of the disputes. It suffers from gross irregularities and also suffers from a complete mis-calculation of mind. We accordingly set aside the judgment and allow the appeal and we uphold the award passed by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal on 30.4.2011 in its totality. Indrajit Chatterjee, J. I Agree. Later: After we had delivered judgment in Court, Mr. A.K. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondents, prayed that the judgment be stayed. Ms. Vineeta Meheria, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, strongly opposed such a prayer and submitted that once the matter has been finally decided, an interim stay would mean causing immense damage to the Appellant. We have considered her submissions and we have also considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondents and we feel that balance of convenience lies in favour of the Appellant in not staying this judgment. We, accordingly, refuse to stay this judgment. Indrajit Chatterjee, J. I Agree.