JUDGMENT : By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the said Arbitration Act') the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 25th April, 2009 passed by the arbitral tribunal allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2. The petitioner was the original respondent to statement of claim and was the claimant to the counter claim before the learned arbitrator. The respondent herein was the original claimant to the statement of claim and was the respondent to the counter claim. 3. On or about 21st March, 1996, the petitioner invited tenders for reclamation behind service berth in the quadrangle between the container berth approach and service berth approach. The petitioner issued amendment to the tender documents on 3rd April, 1996 which was to be treated as part of the said contract. Some of the terms and conditions of the original contract were modified and incorporated as a part of the contract. On 11th April, 1996 the respondent submitted its bid. On 27th May, 1996 the respondent was awarded the contract by the petitioner. The date of commencement of work was 1st June, 1996 and the stipulated date of completion was 28th February, 1997. 4. On 18th May, 1996 the respondent by its letter confirmed that it would provide the stone material as per provisions of tender and it would be entitled to payment for the work done between initial bed level and final level of work done. The respondent also informed the petitioner that the respondent had appointed Dr. R.K. Katti as its consultant. 5. On 27th February, 1997, the respondent was issued work completion certificate by the petitioner with a snag list. It would be the case of the petitioner that there were several incomplete items which the respondent had to comply with after issuing the said work completion certificate which the respondent failed and neglected to comply with by complying incomplete items as mentioned in the said slag list. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of the work, the respondent submitted its 5th, 6th and 7th running account bill to the petitioner. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of the work, the respondent submitted its 5th, 6th and 7th running account bill to the petitioner. By letter date 29th January, 1998 the petitioner asked the respondent to submit its final bill but the respondent failed and neglected to submit the final bill. 7. On 2nd February, 1998 the respondent made various claims before the Senior Manager (PPD) of the petitioner. By letter dated 23rd February, 1998, the Senior Manager (PPD) of the petitioner refused to entertain the claims of the respondent. On 5th March, 1998 the respondent filed an appeal before the Chief Manager (PPD) of the petitioner against the decision of the Senior Manager (PPD) of the petitioner. 8. On 8th April, 1999 the respondent quantified its claim and called upon the petitioner to settle the same making it clear that in case of failure to settle the claim, it would be considered that the disputes and differences had arisen and the respondent would proceed as per the provisions of contract. In the said claim, the respondent claimed the amount of Rs.3,64,51,616.60. On 28th April, 1999, the respondent recorded the alleged failure on the part of the petitioner to pay its dues and therefore invoked the provisions of clause 65 of the contract and called upon the petitioner to appoint arbitrator. 9. The Manager (PPD) of the petitioner by its letter dated 20th October, 1999 to the respondent recorded that no proposal was submitted by the respondent for settling the disputes and the final bill was proceeded as per the contract provisions and retention money would be released after submission of documents as mentioned and amount of Rs. 8 lacs was withheld. The respondent by its letter dated 12th December, 1999 placed on record that it had no claims other than the list of dues submitted by its letter dated 8th April, 1999. 10. On 20th April, 2000 Mr. R.K. Bhansali was appointed as a sole arbitrator. On 19th June, 2000, the respondent filed its statement of claim before the learned arbitrator Mr. R.K. Bhansali. The respondent made six claims including interest totalling to Rs.4,31,72,103.15. No pleadings were filed by the respondent alongwith the said statement. The petitioner filed its written statement and counter claim on 27th September, 2000. The arbitration proceedings were held before said Mr. On 19th June, 2000, the respondent filed its statement of claim before the learned arbitrator Mr. R.K. Bhansali. The respondent made six claims including interest totalling to Rs.4,31,72,103.15. No pleadings were filed by the respondent alongwith the said statement. The petitioner filed its written statement and counter claim on 27th September, 2000. The arbitration proceedings were held before said Mr. R.K. Bhansali on 26th May, 2000, 12th December, 2000, 13th December, 2000, 20th January, 2001 and 25th August, 2001. Both parties agreed before the learned arbitrator that they would not lead oral evidence. The learned arbitrator recorded the said statement in the minutes of the meeting held on 20th January, 2001. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent tried every attempt to delay the arbitration proceedings before the said Mr. R.K. Bhansali on one or the other ground though the arguments by both parties were over. On 19th April, 2002 the learned arbitrator Mr. R.K. Bhansali resigned. After resignation of Mr. R.K. Bhansali as a sole arbitrator, the retired judge of this court was appointed as a sole arbitrator. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that the arbitration meetings were held on 30th October, 2002, 17th February, 2003, 21st April, 2003, 16th May, 2003, 28th August, 2003 and 16th October, 2003. The respondent submitted an additional statement of claim on 14th June, 2003 without making any application for amendment of the statement of claim. The petitioner objected to the filing of this additional statement of claim without making any application for amendment. The respondent thereafter filed an application for amendment of the statement of claim on 18th December, 2003. By an order dated 18th December, 2003, amendment application filed by the respondent came to be rejected by the learned arbitrator. However, the additional statement of claim dated 14th June, 2003 remained on record. In the said amendment, the respondent enhanced the claim amount insofar as claim nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. The respondent did not make any amendment in the claim amount insofar as claim nos. 1 and 4 are concerned. The respondent reduced the claim amount insofar as claim no.5 i.e. idle charges of the man and machinery are concerned. In the said amendment, the respondent enhanced the claim amount insofar as claim nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. The respondent did not make any amendment in the claim amount insofar as claim nos. 1 and 4 are concerned. The respondent reduced the claim amount insofar as claim no.5 i.e. idle charges of the man and machinery are concerned. It is the case of the petitioner that as and by way of abundant caution, the petitioner filed additional written statement dated 1st March, 2004 to the additional statement of claim dated 14th June, 2003 and denied the claims filed by the respondent. 12. On 19th January, 2004, the respondent filed an application for seeking permission to allow the oral evidence of Dr. R.K. Katti which application was opposed by the petitioner. On 23rd January, 2004 the respondent made an application before the learned arbitrator stating that it had reconsidered its stand and decided not to insist on leading oral evidence of Dr. R.K. Katti. By an order dated 24th January, 2004 the learned arbitrator however permitted the respondent to examine Dr. R.K. Katti as its witness and directed the respondent to file his affidavit of evidence. 13. On 16th June, 2004 the respondent filed an affidavit of one Mr. Prakash Falari as their expert witness. The learned arbitrator permitted the respondent to lead oral evidence of the said Mr. Prakash Falari. The said Mr. Prakash Falari however during the pendency of his cross examination informed the learned arbitrator that he would not be available for evidence. The respondent thereafter sought permission to examine Mr. V.T. Ganpule. The learned arbitrator permitted the respondent to file affidavit of evidence of Mr. V.T. Ganpule. The respondent filed fresh affidavit of Mr. V.T. Ganpule on 6th January, 2005 who was cross examined by the petitioner. 14. It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of the cross examination of Mr. V.T. Ganpule, the respondent commenced its oral argument. The petitioner thereafter commenced its argument and pointed out that the learned arbitrator could not look into the additional statement of claim dated 14th June, 2003 as application for amendment of the respondent was already rejected by the learned arbitrator. V.T. Ganpule, the respondent commenced its oral argument. The petitioner thereafter commenced its argument and pointed out that the learned arbitrator could not look into the additional statement of claim dated 14th June, 2003 as application for amendment of the respondent was already rejected by the learned arbitrator. On 11th April, 2008, the learned arbitrator suo moto reviewed his earlier order dated 18th December, 2003 on the ground that there was a clerical or typographical mistake in the order dated 18th December, 2003. The learned arbitrator however did not direct that the additional statement of claim was to be taken on record. 15. On 14th August, 2008, the petitioner completed its arguments before the learned arbitrator. The respondent commenced its arguments in rejoinder on 10th September, 2008. On 10th September, 2008 the respondent filed an application dated 1st September, 2008 for amendment of the claims. The said application was served upon the petitioner's advocate on 10th September, 2008. The petitioner objected to the amendment application being taken on record and insisted for filing reply to the same. The learned arbitrator however allowed the amendment application and directed the petitioner to file reply to the amendment application after allowing the said amendment. The respondent was directed to carry out the amendment within one week. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner pointed out to the learned arbitrator that the question of filing reply became redundant in view of the order of the learned arbitrator allowing amendment, the learned arbitrator however did not vacate and/or modify its order allowing the amendment application. 16. On 23rd September, 2008 the respondent filed another application inter alia praying that the written arguments dated 9th September, 2008 of the respondent be treated as affidavit of evidence of Mr. Vijay Jaiswal, proprietor of the respondent and offered himself for cross examination by the petitioner. The petitioner by its reply dated 20th October, 2008 opposed the application on various grounds. By an order dated 20th October, 2008, the learned arbitrator rejected the said application dated 23rd September, 2008 to examine Mr. Vijay Jaiswal as its witness. The learned arbitrator thereafter closed the proceedings for declaring an award on 27th November, 2008 at 2.30 p.m. 17. The petitioner by its reply dated 20th October, 2008 opposed the application on various grounds. By an order dated 20th October, 2008, the learned arbitrator rejected the said application dated 23rd September, 2008 to examine Mr. Vijay Jaiswal as its witness. The learned arbitrator thereafter closed the proceedings for declaring an award on 27th November, 2008 at 2.30 p.m. 17. The arbitral tribunal by his letter dated 8th December, 2008 informed the parties that the award would be declared on 16th December, 2008, however the award was not pronounced on that day. On 12th January, 2009 a meeting was fixed by the learned arbitrator. It is the case of petitioner till 12th January, 2009 the respondent had not carried out amendment to the statement of claim which was allowed by the learned arbitrator on 12th September, 2008. By an order dated 12th January, 2009 the learned arbitrator directed the respondent to carry out the amendment as specified in the amendment application dated 1st September, 2008 on or before 19th January, 2009. It is the case of the petitioner that though the argument was over and the matter was closed for award, the respondent was permitted to further amend the statement of claim. 18. By the said amendment allowed on 12th September, 2008, the respondent inflated the claim amount insofar as claim nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned substantially than that what was already amended pursuant to the earlier amendment allowed by the learned arbitrator. The respondent served upon the petitioner the said amended statement of claim. On 4th March, 2009, the petitioner filed its additional written statement to the amended statement of claim dated 19th January, 2009. 19. On 16th March, 2009 the respondent filed its rejoinder to the additional written statement before the learned arbitrator. On 24th March, 2009 and 1st April, 2009 the learned arbitrator framed additional issues and closed the matter for passing of the award. It is the case of the petitioner that no hearing was granted or conducted on the new claims/inflated claims introduced by the amendments allowed on 12th January, 2009 by the learned arbitrator. 20. On 25th April, 2009 the learned arbitrator made an award directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,06,872.26 against the claim nos. It is the case of the petitioner that no hearing was granted or conducted on the new claims/inflated claims introduced by the amendments allowed on 12th January, 2009 by the learned arbitrator. 20. On 25th April, 2009 the learned arbitrator made an award directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,06,872.26 against the claim nos. 1, 2 and 3 and allowed the interest at the rate of 14% per annum on the said amount from 28th February, 1997 till realization and further awarded Rs.14,00,000/- by way of cost. The learned arbitrator rejected the counter claims made by the petitioner. The petitioner has impugned the arbitral award insofar as claim nos. 1, 2 and 3 including the claim for interest and arbitration cost and insofar as counter claims of the petitioner are rejected by the learned arbitrator. 21. Mr. Milan Bhise, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a chart for consideration of this court to demonstrate the amount and quantity claimed by the respondent on different dates before the chairman of the petitioner, before the learned arbitrator from time to time in various amendment application. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the arbitration proceedings had already commenced when the respondent had invoked arbitration agreement and had issued a notice dated 28th April, 1998 to the chairman of the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings had commenced in respect of such disputes which were made in the said notice and the limitation had stopped in respect of such claims on the date of receipt of the said notice for appointment of arbitrator in view of section 21 of the said Arbitration Act. Learned counsel submits that by the amendment dated 18th December, 2003 filed by the respondent before the learned arbitrator, the respondent had not only increased the quantity but also increased the amount substantially. Learned counsel submits that on the date of making such application for amendment of the claim, the claim arising out of the additional quantity and the additional amount were already barred by law of limitation. Though the learned arbitrator was empowered to allow the amendment to the statement of claim, the learned arbitrator could not have allowed the amendment in respect of the additional claims which were already barred by limitation. 23. Mr. Though the learned arbitrator was empowered to allow the amendment to the statement of claim, the learned arbitrator could not have allowed the amendment in respect of the additional claims which were already barred by limitation. 23. Mr. Bhise, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned arbitrator has allowed the claims which were beyond the scope of reference and also contract awarded to the respondent. He submits that the learned arbitrator has framed issues which even did not arise under the contract awarded to the respondent and has rendered an award on such issues. Learned counsel invited my attention to the chart submitted by the petitioner to show as to how all the three claims were amended from time to time by the respondent before the learned arbitrator illegally and awarded by the learned arbitrator contrary to law and without application of mind. He submits that the respondent had not only amended the quantity of the claims originally made in the notice invoking the arbitration agreement but also enhanced the claim amount in the amendment. He submits that the respondent has inflated claims from time to time without any justification. 24. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had raised a specific plea in the written statement that the claims made by the respondent were beyond the scope of contract, learned arbitrator has allowed most of the claims made by the respondent without considering the plea of the petitioner on the issue of jurisdiction and has travelled beyond the scope of reference and contract. He submits that the findings rendered by the learned arbitrator that the amendments did not change the quantity of the work but the changes were made only in the rate of material is totally perverse and shows an error apparent on the face of the award. Learned counsel invited my attention to the various amendment applications filed by the respondent and would submit that the respondent had not only changed the quantities of the work but had also changed the basis of the claim. The learned arbitrator has overlooked the nature of the amendment sought by the respondent and allowed by the learned arbitrator while deciding this issue and has committed an error which is patently illegal on the face of the award. 25. The learned arbitrator has overlooked the nature of the amendment sought by the respondent and allowed by the learned arbitrator while deciding this issue and has committed an error which is patently illegal on the face of the award. 25. He submits that the impugned amendments allowed by the learned arbitrator are contrary to section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submits that since the respondent had invoked arbitration agreement in respect of the particular disputes quantified by the respondent in their notice dated 8th April, 1999 by annexing the index and events and had claimed specific amount, the arbitration proceedings had commenced in respect of such claims/disputes under section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and thus the respondent could not have amended the nature of dispute and the claims subsequently in future. He submits that the limitation in respect of the new claims made by the respondent and/or new quantities and new rates claimed by the respondent thereby enhancing the monetary claims could not have been permitted by the learned arbitrator. All such new claims and the claims arising out of the new quantity and new rates were beyond the scope of reference and thus beyond the jurisdiction of the learned arbitrator to entertain such claims and were note arbitrable. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had not explained for cause of delay in making amendment application dated 18th December, 2003. By the said application, the respondent had applied for amendment in respect of the claim no.2 and claim no.3. The contents of the said application for amendment were inconsistent in the final amendment sought by the respondent. The petitioner had pointed out before the learned arbitrator that the respondent had not filed any statement of claim in accordance with law before the erstwhile arbitrator and there was no justification in making the application for amendment without explaining the gross delay. The learned arbitrator however has just taken casual approach in the matter by ignoring the objection raised by the petitioner opposing the amendment application filed by the respondent. 27. The learned arbitrator however has just taken casual approach in the matter by ignoring the objection raised by the petitioner opposing the amendment application filed by the respondent. 27. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had pointed out that the additional statement of claim was rejected by the learned arbitrator by order dated 18th December, 2003 and the first amendment could not be considered by the learned arbitrator, the learned arbitrator without any application being made by the respondent by its order dated 11th April, 2009 suo motu reviewed its own order dated 18th December, 2003 and recalled the said order. The learned arbitrator erroneously held that there was a clerical and typographical mistake in the order dated 18th December, 2003. The learned arbitrator however did not issue any direction stating that the said order dated 18th December, 2003 shall stand corrected. CLAIM NO. 1 28. Insofar as the claim no.1 i.e. “Illegally withheld balance payment and other amounts” is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the claim made before the Chairman of the petitioner in the notice dated 8th April 1999 by which the respondent had invoked arbitration agreement, the respondent had made a claim for 59943.586 cubic meters @ Rs.90/- per cubic meter i.e. the claim for the sum of Rs.53,94,922/-. On 9th June 2000, in the claim filed before the learned arbitrator Shri. R.K. Bhansali, the respondent claimed an amount of Rs.44,22,903.59 comprising of three parts i.e. (i) claim for Rs.33,22,903.59 for 36921.151 cubic meters @ Rs.90/- per cubic meter for quarry run material; (ii) claim for Rs.8,00,000/- which was alleged to have been withheld for removal of heaved up portion; and (iii) a claim for Rs.3,00,000/- which was alleged to have been withheld for royalty. 29. On 27th September 2000, the petitioner herein filed a written statement denying the said claims. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the learned arbitrator, a former Judge of this Court, the respondent made an amended claim dated 16th April 2003 for Rs.44,22,903.59/-. There was no change in so far as the quantity and the amounts claimed in the said amended claim than what was claimed before the earlier learned arbitrator Shri R.K. Bhansali on 9th June 2000. The said amendment was opposed by the petitioner by filing written statement before the learned arbitrator. There was no change in so far as the quantity and the amounts claimed in the said amended claim than what was claimed before the earlier learned arbitrator Shri R.K. Bhansali on 9th June 2000. The said amendment was opposed by the petitioner by filing written statement before the learned arbitrator. On 19th January 2009, the respondent filed amended statement of claim. Insofar as claim no.1 is concerned, the respondent made a claim of Rs.63,41,314.87/- comprising of three parts i.e. (i) Claim for Rs.52,41,314.87/- for 36933.59 cubic meter @ Rs.138/- per cubic meter; (ii) claim for Rs.8,00,000/- towards the amount alleged to have been withheld for removal of heaved up portion; and (iii) claim for Rs.3,00,000/- towards the amount alleged to have been withheld for royalty. The petitioner filed an additional written statement denying the said amended claim. 30. Learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator has dealt with the claim no.1 in issue nos.22, 38, 13 and 23, 17 and 24, 36 and 37. 31. Learned counsel submits that in second amendment application, when the respondent amended the claim no.1, the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- remained the same. In so far as the quantity for first part of claim no.1 is concerned, the respondent claimed the quantity of 399943.59 as per bill no.7. The estimated quantity in the bill of quantity (BOQ) was provided at Rs.3,00,000/- and deviation in excess of 20% provided under the contract came to be 360000 cubic meters. The respondent made a claim for Rs.3,00,000/- cubic meters @Rs.90/- per cubic meter. The respondent made a claim for quantity i.e. 399943.59 cubic meters @ Rs.138/- per cubic meter. The respondent accordingly increased the claim in respect of the claim no.1 from Rs.33,22,903.59/- to Rs.52,41,314.87/-. The respondent made a claim for Rs.3,00,000/- cubic meters @Rs.90/- per cubic meter. The respondent made a claim for quantity i.e. 399943.59 cubic meters @ Rs.138/- per cubic meter. The respondent accordingly increased the claim in respect of the claim no.1 from Rs.33,22,903.59/- to Rs.52,41,314.87/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the learned arbitrator at page 215 of the impugned award while dealing with the reconciliation statement dated 9th March 2001 has recorded that “this statement therefore is binding on both the parties as far as quantities executed by the respondent into the reclamation and bund works, except that, in the last column as regards quantity of 705.107 cubic meters of fill material is concerned, it is mentioned that the petitioner herein may consider the said quantity.” Learned counsel submits that once it is held that the quantities mentioned in the reconciliation statement were correct, the learned arbitrator could not have allowed any claim for inflated quantities. The award shows perversity on the face of the award. 32. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned arbitrator could not have considered 9000 cubic meters of heaved portion as reclaimed area under the contract. He submits that the claim no.1 was beyond the scope of reference. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner in its written statement has specifically denied the amended claim nos.1, 2 and 3 and had disputed the correctness of modified claim no.1, the learned arbitrator has rendered a perverse finding that the corrected statement is not refuted by the petitioner. 33. Insofar as the amended application dated 1st September 2008 made by the respondent is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amendment had not been served upon the petitioner. Learned arbitrator, however, allowed the said application for amendment on 12th September 2008. The petitioner had requested for time to file its reply for opposing the said amendment application. No application for condonation of delay in filing the said application for amendment was made by the respondent. Though the petitioner objected to the said amendment on the ground of gross delay, the application was allowed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, by the learned arbitrator permitting the respondent to carry out such amendment. The petitioner had already completed its arguments. Learned arbitrator did not record these objections raised by the petitioner. Though the petitioner objected to the said amendment on the ground of gross delay, the application was allowed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, by the learned arbitrator permitting the respondent to carry out such amendment. The petitioner had already completed its arguments. Learned arbitrator did not record these objections raised by the petitioner. He submits that the amendment carried out by the respondent was not served upon the petitioner. On 20th October 2008, the learned arbitrator had declared that the award would be declared on 27th November 2008 and for that purpose, the meeting would be held on 27th November 2008. On 20th October 2008, both the parties closed their case. No meeting was called on 27th November 2008. Learned counsel submits that by letter dated 8th December 2008, the learned arbitrator had informed the parties that the award would be declared on 16th December 2008. 34. He submits that on 24th December 2008, the petitioner requested the learned arbitrator for liberty to file its reply to the amendment allowed by the learned arbitrator. Learned arbitrator thereafter fixed the hearing for filing of the reply by the petitioner to the application for amendment on 9th January 2009. Learned counsel submits that since the learned arbitrator had already allowed the amendment on 12th September 2008 itself, the question of keeping any hearing on 9th January 2009 did not arise. Learned counsel submits that on 6th January 2009, the petitioner was compelled to place its objections on record in the form of reply to the amendment application. The petitioner also recorded that the arguments were completed and award was to be declared on 27th November 2008. Learned arbitrator postponed the pronouncement of the award to 16th December 2008. He submits that the application for amendment was deemed to have been abandoned and therefore there was no question of having any fresh hearing. Till 6th January 2009, the respondent had not carried out any amendment though permitted by the learned arbitrator. 35. Learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator by an order dated 12th January 2009 confirmed that the amendment application had been decided by his order dated 10th September 2008. However, on 12th January 2009, the learned arbitrator permitted the respondent to carry out amendment by 19th January 2009 and directed the petitioner to file reply to it by 22nd January 2009. However, on 12th January 2009, the learned arbitrator permitted the respondent to carry out amendment by 19th January 2009 and directed the petitioner to file reply to it by 22nd January 2009. The petitioner accordingly filed its written statement under protest on 4th March 2009. Thereafter, no hearing was granted. He submits that the learned arbitrator did not frame any issue of jurisdiction though pleaded in its written statement filed on 4th March 2009. The petitioner was thus deprived of an opportunity to present its case after filing the written statement to the second amendment. He submits that the award is in violation of the principles of natural justice. All the claims have been awarded by the learned arbitrator on the basis of the second amendment and not on the basis of the original claim or the additional statement of claim dated 14th June 2003. 36. Insofar as the issue no.38 framed and discussed by the learned arbitrator is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim as amended by the second amendment was barred by law of limitation. The finding of the learned arbitrator that the demand for correct rates in the second amendment would not mean that the claims were barred by law of limitation is totally perverse and shows non-application of mind. The finding on limitation is also contrary to the law. 37. In so far as the claim for recovery of Rs.8,00,000/- made by the respondent towards removal of heaved up portion is concerned, the learned arbitrator had decided the said claim while discussing the claim under issue nos.23 and 13. Learned counsel submits that the area of 9000 cubic meters could not have been considered to be reclaimed as a part of the contractual work done under the contract. The said portion was required to be removed by the respondent at its own cost. Since the respondent did not remove the heaved portion, the petitioner was entitled to withheld an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for removal of the said heaved up portion. The finding of the learned arbitrator in the award allowing the said claim is totally perverse and contrary to the contract. He submits that the learned arbitrator has placed reliance on the affidavit of Mr. V.T. Ganpule whose evidence was restricted to the contractual mode of measurement to be made to the respondent. The finding of the learned arbitrator in the award allowing the said claim is totally perverse and contrary to the contract. He submits that the learned arbitrator has placed reliance on the affidavit of Mr. V.T. Ganpule whose evidence was restricted to the contractual mode of measurement to be made to the respondent. He invited my attention to the letter dated 29th March 1997 which was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent in which it was specifically recorded by the petitioner that the heaved up area where filling was not done and it was not permissible to take into consideration. He submits that the heaving was expected and was to be controlled or rectified by the respondent exclusively at its own cost. The impugned award allowing the said claim is contrary to the provisions of the contract. 38. Insofar as the claim for Rs.3,00,000/- which was withheld for royalty is concerned, learned counsel submits that the said claim is discussed in issue nos.17 and 24 of the impugned award. He submits that though there was no pleading in support of the said claim for Rs.3,00,000/- regarding payment of royalty charges, the learned arbitrator had allowed the said claim illegally. He submits that under clause 47 of the General Conditions of Contract, it provided for royalty charges will have to be paid in connection with obtaining the filling material. The respondent did not produce any evidence in support of its claim that the respondent was not liable to pay royalty on filling material. The respondent itself had filed a Writ Petition in this Court. He submits that the learned arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to pay royalty charges to the respondent. 39. Learned counsel submits that since the learned arbitrator has allowed the claims as made in the second amendment which were barred by law of limitation and since it is not possible to severe the good portion of award, if any, from the bad portion of the award, the entire award is liable to be set aside on that ground. He submits that limitation would not relate back to the date of receipt of notice invoking arbitration agreement in this case. The finding of the learned arbitrator that the claims were not barred by law of limitation is contrary to the judgments laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court. 40. He submits that limitation would not relate back to the date of receipt of notice invoking arbitration agreement in this case. The finding of the learned arbitrator that the claims were not barred by law of limitation is contrary to the judgments laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court. 40. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to clauses 43, 44 and 45 of the contract which provides for rates due to additions and alterations, for variation exceeding 20% etc. He submits that the rates provided in the BOQ were inclusive of the loss of material due to sinking etc. Learned counsel submits that though the 7th RA bill was submitted by the respondent which was last bill on 15th April 1997, the respondent did not make any such claim in the said bill. A completion certificate was already issued on 26th February 1997. The respondent, however, made this claim for the first time only on 8th April 1999. The RA bill 5 to 7 was submitted by the respondent only after submission of the completion certificate. 41. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had not issued any variation order as contemplated under clause 43 of the contract. Even if any additional rates are required to be fixed under clause 43, learned arbitrator has decided contrary to the said clause of the contract and accepted the rates as demanded by the respondent without following the mandatory procedure under the said clause. Though the learned arbitrator has recorded the said clause in the award, the learned arbitrator had allowed the amount as claimed by the respondent only after deducting Rs.8,00,000/-. Learned arbitrator has considered the rate of Rs.138/- per cubic meter which was offered by the petitioner to some other contractor, which rate was not applicable to the work in question. Though the petitioner had raised all these objections about non-compliance of mandatory procedure under clauses 43 and 44 of the contract, the learned arbitrator did not consider the submission made by the petitioner in the impugned award and has allowed the prohibited claim. The award is thus in conflict with the public policy. 42. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause 3 of the contract provides for scope of work. Simpson Rule was to be applied for the purpose of measurement. No allowance for extra quantity for sinking could have been considered. The award is thus in conflict with the public policy. 42. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause 3 of the contract provides for scope of work. Simpson Rule was to be applied for the purpose of measurement. No allowance for extra quantity for sinking could have been considered. Clause 8.2 of the said contract provides for mode of measurement. Reliance is also placed on preamble of the contract. He submits that reconciliation carried out by the parties pursuant to the directions given by the learned arbitrator without prejudice to the rights and contentions, was not binding on the petitioner. He submits that even in the first amendment applied by the respondent, the respondent had made a claim at the rate of Rs.90/- per cubic meter. Only in the second amendment, the respondent made a claim at the rate of Rs.138/- per cubic meter that is after closure of the argument. CLAIM NO. 2 43. In so far as claim no.2 i.e. claim for additional quantity of angular rock boulders to construct larger cross section of the rock bund than shown in the tender drawing is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the notice dated 8th April 1999 issued to the Chairman of the petitioner invoking arbitration agreement, the respondent had made this claim for Rs.17,11,000/- comprising of 11800 cubic meters @ Rs.145/- per cubic meter. In its claim filed before the learned arbitrator Shri Bhansali on 9th June 2000, the respondent, however, made a claim of Rs.11,60,046.11 for 8003.18 cubic meters @ Rs.145/- per cubic meter. The said claim was opposed by the petitioner by filing written statement on 27th September 2000. In its amended claim dated 16th April 2003, the respondent made a claim for Rs.28,89,536.14 comprising of 2200.32 cubic meters @ Rs.145/- per cubic meter and 10281.96 cubic meters @Rs.250/- per cubic meter claimed as market price. The petitioner filed an additional written statement opposing the said amended claim of Rs.64,38,716.84/-. 44. On 19th January 2009, the respondent made further amendment to claim no.2 for Rs.72,72,207.30/-. The said amount was claimed comprising of 34800 cubic meters @ Rs.145/- per cubic meter and 11204.90 MT @Rs.545.49 per MT as per DSR rate. The respondent deducted the sum of Rs.38,85,953.60/- which was paid by the petitioner to the respondent out of the claim amount of Rs.1,11,58,160/- and made a claim of Rs.72,72,207.30/-. The said amount was claimed comprising of 34800 cubic meters @ Rs.145/- per cubic meter and 11204.90 MT @Rs.545.49 per MT as per DSR rate. The respondent deducted the sum of Rs.38,85,953.60/- which was paid by the petitioner to the respondent out of the claim amount of Rs.1,11,58,160/- and made a claim of Rs.72,72,207.30/-. The petitioner opposed the said claim by filing additional written statement. Learned arbitrator framed various issues. The learned arbitrator has discussed the said claim under issue nos.18, 25, 39, 36 and 37 and has allowed the said claim. 45. He submits that the original claim no.2 made by the respondent was only for Rs.11,60,046.11/- for providing rock angular boulder of 10 kgs. to 200 kgs. for bund wall as per specific scope of work and drawings. The respondent had claimed 8003.18 cubic meters in respect of claim no.2. The rate originally claimed by the respondent under claim no.2 was at Rs.145/- per cubic meter. In the first amendment, the claim no.2 was calculated on the basis of Rs.145/- per cubic meter as well as Rs.250/- per cubic meter. In the second amendment, the claim no.2 was calculated on the basis of Rs.145/- per cubic meter and Rs.545.49 per cubic meter. 46. Learned counsel submits that the respondent had failed to establish before the learned arbitrator the basis on which it had arrived at the quantity of 10281.96 cubic meters as additional quantity of rock bund over and above the estimated quantity mentioned in the tender. Similarly, there was no evidence produced by the respondent for proving the correctness of the rate of Rs.250/- per cubic meter claimed by the respondent in respect of additional quantity of rock bund of 10281.96 cubic meters. The respondent also did not prove that the respondent had completed the work of 39281 cubic meters in respect of the said claim no.2. 47. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the measurements in the contract were to be taken from initial ground level and not below the ground level. The respondent had made the original claim for the construction of bund wall only on the basis of stones of 10 kgs. to 200 kgs. It was not the case of the respondent in the original claim that they were entitled to payment of 1 to 1.5 ton boulders as an extra item. He submits that the claim nos. The respondent had made the original claim for the construction of bund wall only on the basis of stones of 10 kgs. to 200 kgs. It was not the case of the respondent in the original claim that they were entitled to payment of 1 to 1.5 ton boulders as an extra item. He submits that the claim nos. 2 and 3 were overlapping and were duplicated claims. Learned arbitrator has awarded both the claims which shows perversity and patent illegality on the face of the award. 48. Learned counsel submits that though the respondent had not followed the prescribed procedure under clause 43 of the contract and had failed to produce any material to claim the quantity of the alleged extra work in respect of the claims filed before the learned arbitrator, the learned arbitrator has allowed the claim contrary to the terms of the contract. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had specifically denied and disputed the amended claim no.2, the learned arbitrator has rendered perverse finding that the petitioner had not refuted the amended claim no.2. 49. On the issue of limitation, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the learned arbitrator that the respondent had not changed the quantity is totally perverse and contrary to the amendment application made and allowed by the learned arbitrator. The award discloses patent illegality on the face of the award. 50. Learned counsel submits that before making the claim no.2, the respondent did not follow the procedure provided for claiming any variations. The respondent had not submitted any rate analysis. The claim made by the respondent for bund wall was not based on the tender drawings. Mr. Ganpule who was examined as a witness by the respondent had admitted that as per drawings, the side slope was 1:1. The petitioner had not issued any variation order. In the 5th RA bill, no such claim was made which was submitted on 10th March 1997. The said bill was returned to the petitioner by the respondent with a direction to resubmit the same. On 21st March 1997, the respondent had submitted 6th RA bill. In the said 6th RA bill, the respondent had admitted the rate @ Rs.250/-. He submits that on 29th March 1997, the petitioner had disputed the quantity as per slope 1:1. All the joint measurements recorded 1:1 slope. 51. On 21st March 1997, the respondent had submitted 6th RA bill. In the said 6th RA bill, the respondent had admitted the rate @ Rs.250/-. He submits that on 29th March 1997, the petitioner had disputed the quantity as per slope 1:1. All the joint measurements recorded 1:1 slope. 51. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the District Schedule Rates of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg were not applicable to this contract, learned arbitrator has applied the said schedule rates. Learned arbitrator has acted contrary to the terms of the contract. Learned counsel invited my attention to the Minutes of Meeting held between the parties in which the respondent agreed not to charge any extra amount for heavy boulders and submits that the learned arbitrator has decided contrary to the said agreement arrived at in the Minutes of Meeting which was an admitted document. CLAIM NO.3 52. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned arbitrator totally overlooked the provisions of the contract provided for mode of measurement by Simpsons formula. The respondent themselves had accepted reconciliation quantity made on 9th March, 2001. The petitioner had determined the agreed quantities based on the contractual provisions. As regards reclamation work, the petitioner had not agreed to quantity of Rs.49,849.90 cubic meters. Similarly as regards bund wall, the petitioner had not agreed to the quantity of 12,482.57 cubic meters for the bund wall above ground level and the quantity 57,600 cubic meters in the bund wall below ground level of the sea bed as the quantities were not based on joint measurements and joint records mentioned by the parties. He submits that though the respondent did not produce any evidence to prove the disputed quantities in terms of cubic meters which were originally claimed and altered by the amendments, the learned arbitrator has allowed the entire quantities as claimed by the respondent without evidence. 53. Learned counsel submits that under the terms of the contract, the petitioner was liable to make payment to the respondent in respect of slope of 1:1. The respondent achieved bund slope at 1:2 and not 1:1 as required by the contract. The respondent themselves had accepted and agreed that the bund slope required was 1:1 and not 1:2. 53. Learned counsel submits that under the terms of the contract, the petitioner was liable to make payment to the respondent in respect of slope of 1:1. The respondent achieved bund slope at 1:2 and not 1:1 as required by the contract. The respondent themselves had accepted and agreed that the bund slope required was 1:1 and not 1:2. The respondent themselves in the 5th RA Bill had claimed side slope of 1:1 for bund wall which bill was submitted by the respondent on 10th March, 1997 which was after completion of the work. The award of the learned arbitrator allowing the claim of the respondent based on slope 1:2 is thus contrary to the provisions of the contract and is in conflict with public policy. He submits that the learned arbitrator ignored the provisions of the contract. The General Specifications clauses 6, 7 and 9 did not make any reference whatsoever to materials brought to side by trucks and dumpers. The said provisions stipulates the measurement for the purpose of payment would be from the ground level. The joint survey report was contemplated by clauses 8 and 9 of General Specifications. The 7th RA Bill was submitted on 15th April, 1997. The joint survey record was completed on 10th March, 1997. The said joint survey report was conclusive evidence of the fact that the total reclamation work was 3,63,027.435 cubic meters and for bund wall the quantity was 26.799.682 cubic meters. The learned arbitrator ignored the joint survey record maintained by the parties under the provisions of the contract and awarded exorbitant quantity based on no evidence and contrary to the joint survey record. 54. Learned counsel submits that the respondent had been already paid a sum of Rs.3,65,56,887.16 on the basis of 7 RA Bills submitted by them. The petitioner had already made payment on the basis of levels taken from time to time in accordance with the contract. The learned arbitrator could not have considered the truck loads while allowing the said claims in favour of the respondent. The respondent had never called upon the engineer of the petitioner to make calculations as per truck loads. The learned arbitrator overlooked the register of the trips made by dumpers and trucks. The respondent did not submit a final bill. The 7th RA Bill submitted by the respondent was the last bill submitted by them. The respondent had never called upon the engineer of the petitioner to make calculations as per truck loads. The learned arbitrator overlooked the register of the trips made by dumpers and trucks. The respondent did not submit a final bill. The 7th RA Bill submitted by the respondent was the last bill submitted by them. It was only the final bill which determines the quantum on the basis of the Simpson formula. No reasons are rendered by the learned arbitrator as to how the quantum in respect of the reclamation, bund wall, bund slope of 1:2 was derived from truck loads. Learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator totally overlooked the provisions of the contract which did not stipulate any payment for any material below ground level. 55. Insofar as rates awarded by the learned arbitrator in respect of claim no.3 is concerned, learned counsel submits that the respondent did not produce any evidence in support of their claims for higher rates before the learned arbitrator. DSR rates of Harbour Division were not provided for in the contract and could not have been applied for calculating rates by the respondent or by the learned arbitrator while allowing the said claim. The respondent had not even discussed the basis on which the rates were sought to be proved by the respondent in respect of claim no.3. The rates awarded by the learned arbitrator is not in accordance with the contract but beyond the terms of the contract. 56. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had already paid to the respondent for 26,799.68 cubic meters at the contractual rate of Rs.145 per cubic meter which rate had been accepted by the respondent. He submits that the respondent was not entitled to 20% variation as claimed by them in the second amendment. Learned counsel submits that the quantity of 34,800 cubic meters and quantity in excess of 20% of variation limit was not mentioned by the respondent in the first amendment to the statement of claim. Only in the second amendment, the respondent had claimed the said quantity without producing any material on record in support of the said claim. Though the petitioner had challenged the rate analysis given by the respondent in the amended statement of claim, the learned arbitrator rendered a perverse finding that there was no such challenge by the petitioner. 57. Only in the second amendment, the respondent had claimed the said quantity without producing any material on record in support of the said claim. Though the petitioner had challenged the rate analysis given by the respondent in the amended statement of claim, the learned arbitrator rendered a perverse finding that there was no such challenge by the petitioner. 57. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had visited the site before submission of tender. The rates provided in the contract covered the additional quantity of material, if any, sunk. The respondent had made a claim only after submission of the completion certificate. He submits that there was no provision in the BOQ insofar as the claim no.3 as made by the respondent is concerned. The respondent has connected the claim no.3 with claim no.2 which is contrary to the terms of the contract. Since there was no provision made in the BOQ in respect of the claim made under claim no.3, no measurement was carried out by the parties at all as contemplated under the terms of the contract. The respondent did not submit any rate analysis. The petitioner had not ordered any variation. 58. Learned counsel submits that claim no.3 was specifically prohibited under clause 3 of the general specifications. Learned arbitrator by allowing the prohibited claim has exceeded his jurisdiction. The award thus is contrary to the terms of the contract and is in conflict with the public policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that loss of material, if any, in water was not payable separately under the terms of the contract. 59. He submits that under the Simpson Rule applicable under the contract, it was not possible to measure the quantity drown in water. The entire claim was disputed by the petitioner in toto. Learned counsel placed reliance on clauses 2, 3 and 9 of the General Specifications which provided for prohibition for making any such payment. He submits that the claims were contrary to clauses 43, 44 and 45 of the contract. The rates demanded by the respondent were not in accordance with the said provision. The award is contrary to and overlooking the provision of the contract. Learned arbitrator overlooked the discussions arrived at in the Minutes of Meeting on some frivolous grounds. 60. Mr. He submits that the claims were contrary to clauses 43, 44 and 45 of the contract. The rates demanded by the respondent were not in accordance with the said provision. The award is contrary to and overlooking the provision of the contract. Learned arbitrator overlooked the discussions arrived at in the Minutes of Meeting on some frivolous grounds. 60. Mr. Bhise, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Engineering Co. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., reported in AIR 1992 SC 232 and in particular paragraphs 26 to 31 and would submit that the learned arbitrator could not decide contrary to the terms of the contract and could not act arbitrarily. 61. Per contra, Mr. Bharucha, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the learned arbitrator has rendered various findings of fact which are not perverse and thus no interference is warranted with such findings of fact. In so far as the claim no.1 is concerned, he submits that statement of the reconcile quantity filed by the parties before the learned arbitrator was binding on both the parties. It was not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner would not consider the jointly recorded quantity at all. The learned arbitrator had recorded the finding that the said statement was binding on both the parties. This Court cannot interfere with such finding of fact. 62. Learned senior counsel submits that insofar as the rate of Rs.138/- per cubic meter allowed by the learned arbitrator is concerned, the said rate has been awarded by the learned arbitrator based on the rate claimed by the petitioner itself in the counter claim against the respondent after reducing the amount against the dredging. Learned arbitrator had rightly considered the said rate and cannot be challenged by the petitioner. He submits that under clause 3.3 of the contract, additional dumping material was anticipated. The petitioner had asked the respondent for fast dumping of the material and as a result thereof, the additional quantity was required to be used. The respondent was not responsible for the same. The claim thus made by the respondent for additional quantity or for bigger size of the boulders was justified. He submits that the learned arbitrator had rightly considered the joint quantity arrived at between the parties. The respondent was not responsible for the same. The claim thus made by the respondent for additional quantity or for bigger size of the boulders was justified. He submits that the learned arbitrator had rightly considered the joint quantity arrived at between the parties. The petitioner cannot thus challenge the said finding before the learned arbitrator. 63. Insofar as the claim no.2 is concerned, the learned senior counsel invited my attention to page 304 of the contract which provides for work sketch showing slope as 1:1. He submits that the sketch drawn in the contract was not drawn seriously. The rock bund was not designed on sound principle of Engineering. The learned arbitrator, after considering the oral evidence of Mr. Ganpule who was an expert, has rightly allowed the claim and has rendered a finding that the slope 1:1 was not possible. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence considered by the learned arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. He submits that there was no dispute about the actual quantity. The petitioner wanted to pay for 1:1 slope. The respondent had demanded the additional quantity in view of 1:2 slope. The finding rendered by the learned arbitrator was based on pure question of fact. The learned arbitrator has already rejected the claim for extra lead and escalation. This Court cannot interfere with such finding of fact rendered by the learned arbitrator. 64. Insofar as the claim no.3 is concerned, learned senior counsel submits that though the respondent had used big boulders for the work carried out under claim no.2, the respondent had claimed for the quantity provided in the BOQ rate plus 20% excess at the rate provided in the BOQ. He submits that insofar as the claim no.3 is concerned, the respondent had used the big size boulders for under ground works. The Minutes of meeting relied upon by the petitioner were not applicable since the same could not be considered as a binding contract between the parties. The interpretation of the contract rendered by the learned arbitrator is a possible interpretation and cannot be interfered with by this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 65. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner had only denied the quantity on the ground that the quantity claimed by the respondent was for the work below the ground level. The interpretation of the contract rendered by the learned arbitrator is a possible interpretation and cannot be interfered with by this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 65. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner had only denied the quantity on the ground that the quantity claimed by the respondent was for the work below the ground level. The petitioner had not disputed the measurement of quantity as claimed by the respondent. Learned arbitrator has rightly rendered a finding to that effect which cannot be interfered with. Learned arbitrator has also considered the progress report in the impugned award which was jointly signed by both the parties. 66. Insofar as the rates applied by the learned arbitrator is concerned, learned senior counsel submits that the District Schedule Rate relied upon by the respondent and followed by the learned arbitrator was also the government approved rate. Learned arbitrator had applied the District Schedule Rates of Ratnagiri, Harbour Division. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence considered by the learned arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 67. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned arbitrator could not have allowed the amendment to the statement of claim in the manner permitted by the learned arbitrator is concerned, he invited my attention to the statement of claim and also to the amendment application and would submit that the respondent had reserved the right to amend its claim. Once such liberty was reserved by the respondent, the learned arbitrator was justified in allowing the application for amendment. He submits that such amendment even otherwise was permissible under Section 23 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner thus cannot challenge such amendment which was rightly allowed by the learned arbitrator. JUDGMENT : By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the said Arbitration Act') the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 25th April, 2009 passed by the arbitral tribunal allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2. The petitioner was the original respondent to statement of claim and was the claimant to the counter claim before the learned arbitrator. The respondent herein was the original claimant to the statement of claim and was the respondent to the counter claim. 3. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2. The petitioner was the original respondent to statement of claim and was the claimant to the counter claim before the learned arbitrator. The respondent herein was the original claimant to the statement of claim and was the respondent to the counter claim. 3. On or about 21st March, 1996, the petitioner invited tenders for reclamation behind service berth in the quadrangle between the container berth approach and service berth approach. The petitioner issued amendment to the tender documents on 3rd April, 1996 which was to be treated as part of the said contract. Some of the terms and conditions of the original contract were modified and incorporated as a part of the contract. On 11th April, 1996 the respondent submitted its bid. On 27th May, 1996 the respondent was awarded the contract by the petitioner. The date of commencement of work was 1st June, 1996 and the stipulated date of completion was 28th February, 1997. 4. On 18th May, 1996 the respondent by its letter confirmed that it would provide the stone material as per provisions of tender and it would be entitled to payment for the work done between initial bed level and final level of work done. The respondent also informed the petitioner that the respondent had appointed Dr. R.K. Katti as its consultant. 5. On 27th February, 1997, the respondent was issued work completion certificate by the petitioner with a snag list. It would be the case of the petitioner that there were several incomplete items which the respondent had to comply with after issuing the said work completion certificate which the respondent failed and neglected to comply with by complying incomplete items as mentioned in the said slag list. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of the work, the respondent submitted its 5th, 6th and 7th running account bill to the petitioner. By letter date 29th January, 1998 the petitioner asked the respondent to submit its final bill but the respondent failed and neglected to submit the final bill. 7. On 2nd February, 1998 the respondent made various claims before the Senior Manager (PPD) of the petitioner. By letter dated 23rd February, 1998, the Senior Manager (PPD) of the petitioner refused to entertain the claims of the respondent. 7. On 2nd February, 1998 the respondent made various claims before the Senior Manager (PPD) of the petitioner. By letter dated 23rd February, 1998, the Senior Manager (PPD) of the petitioner refused to entertain the claims of the respondent. On 5th March, 1998 the respondent filed an appeal before the Chief Manager (PPD) of the petitioner against the decision of the Senior Manager (PPD) of the petitioner. 8. On 8th April, 1999 the respondent quantified its claim and called upon the petitioner to settle the same making it clear that in case of failure to settle the claim, it would be considered that the disputes and differences had arisen and the respondent would proceed as per the provisions of contract. In the said claim, the respondent claimed the amount of Rs.3,64,51,616.60. On 28th April, 1999, the respondent recorded the alleged failure on the part of the petitioner to pay its dues and therefore invoked the provisions of clause 65 of the contract and called upon the petitioner to appoint arbitrator. 9. The Manager (PPD) of the petitioner by its letter dated 20th October, 1999 to the respondent recorded that no proposal was submitted by the respondent for settling the disputes and the final bill was proceeded as per the contract provisions and retention money would be released after submission of documents as mentioned and amount of Rs. 8 lacs was withheld. The respondent by its letter dated 12th December, 1999 placed on record that it had no claims other than the list of dues submitted by its letter dated 8th April, 1999. 10. On 20th April, 2000 Mr. R.K. Bhansali was appointed as a sole arbitrator. On 19th June, 2000, the respondent filed its statement of claim before the learned arbitrator Mr. R.K. Bhansali. The respondent made six claims including interest totalling to Rs.4,31,72,103.15. No pleadings were filed by the respondent alongwith the said statement. The petitioner filed its written statement and counter claim on 27th September, 2000. The arbitration proceedings were held before said Mr. R.K. Bhansali on 26th May, 2000, 12th December, 2000, 13th December, 2000, 20th January, 2001 and 25th August, 2001. Both parties agreed before the learned arbitrator that they would not lead oral evidence. The learned arbitrator recorded the said statement in the minutes of the meeting held on 20th January, 2001. The arbitration proceedings were held before said Mr. R.K. Bhansali on 26th May, 2000, 12th December, 2000, 13th December, 2000, 20th January, 2001 and 25th August, 2001. Both parties agreed before the learned arbitrator that they would not lead oral evidence. The learned arbitrator recorded the said statement in the minutes of the meeting held on 20th January, 2001. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent tried every attempt to delay the arbitration proceedings before the said Mr. R.K. Bhansali on one or the other ground though the arguments by both parties were over. On 19th April, 2002 the learned arbitrator Mr. R.K. Bhansali resigned. After resignation of Mr. R.K. Bhansali as a sole arbitrator, the retired judge of this court was appointed as a sole arbitrator. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that the arbitration meetings were held on 30th October, 2002, 17th February, 2003, 21st April, 2003, 16th May, 2003, 28th August, 2003 and 16th October, 2003. The respondent submitted an additional statement of claim on 14th June, 2003 without making any application for amendment of the statement of claim. The petitioner objected to the filing of this additional statement of claim without making any application for amendment. The respondent thereafter filed an application for amendment of the statement of claim on 18th December, 2003. By an order dated 18th December, 2003, amendment application filed by the respondent came to be rejected by the learned arbitrator. However, the additional statement of claim dated 14th June, 2003 remained on record. In the said amendment, the respondent enhanced the claim amount insofar as claim nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. The respondent did not make any amendment in the claim amount insofar as claim nos. 1 and 4 are concerned. The respondent reduced the claim amount insofar as claim no.5 i.e. idle charges of the man and machinery are concerned. It is the case of the petitioner that as and by way of abundant caution, the petitioner filed additional written statement dated 1st March, 2004 to the additional statement of claim dated 14th June, 2003 and denied the claims filed by the respondent. 12. On 19th January, 2004, the respondent filed an application for seeking permission to allow the oral evidence of Dr. R.K. Katti which application was opposed by the petitioner. 12. On 19th January, 2004, the respondent filed an application for seeking permission to allow the oral evidence of Dr. R.K. Katti which application was opposed by the petitioner. On 23rd January, 2004 the respondent made an application before the learned arbitrator stating that it had reconsidered its stand and decided not to insist on leading oral evidence of Dr. R.K. Katti. By an order dated 24th January, 2004 the learned arbitrator however permitted the respondent to examine Dr. R.K. Katti as its witness and directed the respondent to file his affidavit of evidence. 13. On 16th June, 2004 the respondent filed an affidavit of one Mr. Prakash Falari as their expert witness. The learned arbitrator permitted the respondent to lead oral evidence of the said Mr. Prakash Falari. The said Mr. Prakash Falari however during the pendency of his cross examination informed the learned arbitrator that he would not be available for evidence. The respondent thereafter sought permission to examine Mr. V.T. Ganpule. The learned arbitrator permitted the respondent to file affidavit of evidence of Mr. V.T. Ganpule. The respondent filed fresh affidavit of Mr. V.T. Ganpule on 6th January, 2005 who was cross examined by the petitioner. 14. It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of the cross examination of Mr. V.T. Ganpule, the respondent commenced its oral argument. The petitioner thereafter commenced its argument and pointed out that the learned arbitrator could not look into the additional statement of claim dated 14th June, 2003 as application for amendment of the respondent was already rejected by the learned arbitrator. On 11th April, 2008, the learned arbitrator suo moto reviewed his earlier order dated 18th December, 2003 on the ground that there was a clerical or typographical mistake in the order dated 18th December, 2003. The learned arbitrator however did not direct that the additional statement of claim was to be taken on record. 15. On 14th August, 2008, the petitioner completed its arguments before the learned arbitrator. The respondent commenced its arguments in rejoinder on 10th September, 2008. On 10th September, 2008 the respondent filed an application dated 1st September, 2008 for amendment of the claims. The said application was served upon the petitioner's advocate on 10th September, 2008. The petitioner objected to the amendment application being taken on record and insisted for filing reply to the same. On 10th September, 2008 the respondent filed an application dated 1st September, 2008 for amendment of the claims. The said application was served upon the petitioner's advocate on 10th September, 2008. The petitioner objected to the amendment application being taken on record and insisted for filing reply to the same. The learned arbitrator however allowed the amendment application and directed the petitioner to file reply to the amendment application after allowing the said amendment. The respondent was directed to carry out the amendment within one week. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner pointed out to the learned arbitrator that the question of filing reply became redundant in view of the order of the learned arbitrator allowing amendment, the learned arbitrator however did not vacate and/or modify its order allowing the amendment application. 16. On 23rd September, 2008 the respondent filed another application inter alia praying that the written arguments dated 9th September, 2008 of the respondent be treated as affidavit of evidence of Mr. Vijay Jaiswal, proprietor of the respondent and offered himself for cross examination by the petitioner. The petitioner by its reply dated 20th October, 2008 opposed the application on various grounds. By an order dated 20th October, 2008, the learned arbitrator rejected the said application dated 23rd September, 2008 to examine Mr. Vijay Jaiswal as its witness. The learned arbitrator thereafter closed the proceedings for declaring an award on 27th November, 2008 at 2.30 p.m. 17. The arbitral tribunal by his letter dated 8th December, 2008 informed the parties that the award would be declared on 16th December, 2008, however the award was not pronounced on that day. On 12th January, 2009 a meeting was fixed by the learned arbitrator. It is the case of petitioner till 12th January, 2009 the respondent had not carried out amendment to the statement of claim which was allowed by the learned arbitrator on 12th September, 2008. By an order dated 12th January, 2009 the learned arbitrator directed the respondent to carry out the amendment as specified in the amendment application dated 1st September, 2008 on or before 19th January, 2009. It is the case of the petitioner that though the argument was over and the matter was closed for award, the respondent was permitted to further amend the statement of claim. 18. It is the case of the petitioner that though the argument was over and the matter was closed for award, the respondent was permitted to further amend the statement of claim. 18. By the said amendment allowed on 12th September, 2008, the respondent inflated the claim amount insofar as claim nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned substantially than that what was already amended pursuant to the earlier amendment allowed by the learned arbitrator. The respondent served upon the petitioner the said amended statement of claim. On 4th March, 2009, the petitioner filed its additional written statement to the amended statement of claim dated 19th January, 2009. 19. On 16th March, 2009 the respondent filed its rejoinder to the additional written statement before the learned arbitrator. On 24th March, 2009 and 1st April, 2009 the learned arbitrator framed additional issues and closed the matter for passing of the award. It is the case of the petitioner that no hearing was granted or conducted on the new claims/inflated claims introduced by the amendments allowed on 12th January, 2009 by the learned arbitrator. 20. On 25th April, 2009 the learned arbitrator made an award directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,06,872.26 against the claim nos. 1, 2 and 3 and allowed the interest at the rate of 14% per annum on the said amount from 28th February, 1997 till realization and further awarded Rs.14,00,000/- by way of cost. The learned arbitrator rejected the counter claims made by the petitioner. The petitioner has impugned the arbitral award insofar as claim nos. 1, 2 and 3 including the claim for interest and arbitration cost and insofar as counter claims of the petitioner are rejected by the learned arbitrator. 21. Mr. Milan Bhise, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a chart for consideration of this court to demonstrate the amount and quantity claimed by the respondent on different dates before the chairman of the petitioner, before the learned arbitrator from time to time in various amendment application. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the arbitration proceedings had already commenced when the respondent had invoked arbitration agreement and had issued a notice dated 28th April, 1998 to the chairman of the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the arbitration proceedings had already commenced when the respondent had invoked arbitration agreement and had issued a notice dated 28th April, 1998 to the chairman of the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings had commenced in respect of such disputes which were made in the said notice and the limitation had stopped in respect of such claims on the date of receipt of the said notice for appointment of arbitrator in view of section 21 of the said Arbitration Act. Learned counsel submits that by the amendment dated 18th December, 2003 filed by the respondent before the learned arbitrator, the respondent had not only increased the quantity but also increased the amount substantially. Learned counsel submits that on the date of making such application for amendment of the claim, the claim arising out of the additional quantity and the additional amount were already barred by law of limitation. Though the learned arbitrator was empowered to allow the amendment to the statement of claim, the learned arbitrator could not have allowed the amendment in respect of the additional claims which were already barred by limitation. 23. Mr. Bhise, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned arbitrator has allowed the claims which were beyond the scope of reference and also contract awarded to the respondent. He submits that the learned arbitrator has framed issues which even did not arise under the contract awarded to the respondent and has rendered an award on such issues. Learned counsel invited my attention to the chart submitted by the petitioner to show as to how all the three claims were amended from time to time by the respondent before the learned arbitrator illegally and awarded by the learned arbitrator contrary to law and without application of mind. He submits that the respondent had not only amended the quantity of the claims originally made in the notice invoking the arbitration agreement but also enhanced the claim amount in the amendment. He submits that the respondent has inflated claims from time to time without any justification. 24. He submits that the respondent had not only amended the quantity of the claims originally made in the notice invoking the arbitration agreement but also enhanced the claim amount in the amendment. He submits that the respondent has inflated claims from time to time without any justification. 24. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had raised a specific plea in the written statement that the claims made by the respondent were beyond the scope of contract, learned arbitrator has allowed most of the claims made by the respondent without considering the plea of the petitioner on the issue of jurisdiction and has travelled beyond the scope of reference and contract. He submits that the findings rendered by the learned arbitrator that the amendments did not change the quantity of the work but the changes were made only in the rate of material is totally perverse and shows an error apparent on the face of the award. Learned counsel invited my attention to the various amendment applications filed by the respondent and would submit that the respondent had not only changed the quantities of the work but had also changed the basis of the claim. The learned arbitrator has overlooked the nature of the amendment sought by the respondent and allowed by the learned arbitrator while deciding this issue and has committed an error which is patently illegal on the face of the award. 25. He submits that the impugned amendments allowed by the learned arbitrator are contrary to section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submits that since the respondent had invoked arbitration agreement in respect of the particular disputes quantified by the respondent in their notice dated 8th April, 1999 by annexing the index and events and had claimed specific amount, the arbitration proceedings had commenced in respect of such claims/disputes under section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and thus the respondent could not have amended the nature of dispute and the claims subsequently in future. He submits that the limitation in respect of the new claims made by the respondent and/or new quantities and new rates claimed by the respondent thereby enhancing the monetary claims could not have been permitted by the learned arbitrator. He submits that the limitation in respect of the new claims made by the respondent and/or new quantities and new rates claimed by the respondent thereby enhancing the monetary claims could not have been permitted by the learned arbitrator. All such new claims and the claims arising out of the new quantity and new rates were beyond the scope of reference and thus beyond the jurisdiction of the learned arbitrator to entertain such claims and were note arbitrable. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had not explained for cause of delay in making amendment application dated 18th December, 2003. By the said application, the respondent had applied for amendment in respect of the claim no.2 and claim no.3. The contents of the said application for amendment were inconsistent in the final amendment sought by the respondent. The petitioner had pointed out before the learned arbitrator that the respondent had not filed any statement of claim in accordance with law before the erstwhile arbitrator and there was no justification in making the application for amendment without explaining the gross delay. The learned arbitrator however has just taken casual approach in the matter by ignoring the objection raised by the petitioner opposing the amendment application filed by the respondent. 27. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had pointed out that the additional statement of claim was rejected by the learned arbitrator by order dated 18th December, 2003 and the first amendment could not be considered by the learned arbitrator, the learned arbitrator without any application being made by the respondent by its order dated 11th April, 2009 suo motu reviewed its own order dated 18th December, 2003 and recalled the said order. The learned arbitrator erroneously held that there was a clerical and typographical mistake in the order dated 18th December, 2003. The learned arbitrator however did not issue any direction stating that the said order dated 18th December, 2003 shall stand corrected. CLAIM NO. 1 28. The learned arbitrator erroneously held that there was a clerical and typographical mistake in the order dated 18th December, 2003. The learned arbitrator however did not issue any direction stating that the said order dated 18th December, 2003 shall stand corrected. CLAIM NO. 1 28. Insofar as the claim no.1 i.e. “Illegally withheld balance payment and other amounts” is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the claim made before the Chairman of the petitioner in the notice dated 8th April 1999 by which the respondent had invoked arbitration agreement, the respondent had made a claim for 59943.586 cubic meters @ Rs.90/- per cubic meter i.e. the claim for the sum of Rs.53,94,922/-. On 9th June 2000, in the claim filed before the learned arbitrator Shri. R.K. Bhansali, the respondent claimed an amount of Rs.44,22,903.59 comprising of three parts i.e. (i) claim for Rs.33,22,903.59 for 36921.151 cubic meters @ Rs.90/- per cubic meter for quarry run material; (ii) claim for Rs.8,00,000/- which was alleged to have been withheld for removal of heaved up portion; and (iii) a claim for Rs.3,00,000/- which was alleged to have been withheld for royalty. 29. On 27th September 2000, the petitioner herein filed a written statement denying the said claims. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the learned arbitrator, a former Judge of this Court, the respondent made an amended claim dated 16th April 2003 for Rs.44,22,903.59/-. There was no change in so far as the quantity and the amounts claimed in the said amended claim than what was claimed before the earlier learned arbitrator Shri R.K. Bhansali on 9th June 2000. The said amendment was opposed by the petitioner by filing written statement before the learned arbitrator. On 19th January 2009, the respondent filed amended statement of claim. Insofar as claim no.1 is concerned, the respondent made a claim of Rs.63,41,314.87/- comprising of three parts i.e. (i) Claim for Rs.52,41,314.87/- for 36933.59 cubic meter @ Rs.138/- per cubic meter; (ii) claim for Rs.8,00,000/- towards the amount alleged to have been withheld for removal of heaved up portion; and (iii) claim for Rs.3,00,000/- towards the amount alleged to have been withheld for royalty. The petitioner filed an additional written statement denying the said amended claim. 30. The petitioner filed an additional written statement denying the said amended claim. 30. Learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator has dealt with the claim no.1 in issue nos.22, 38, 13 and 23, 17 and 24, 36 and 37. 31. Learned counsel submits that in second amendment application, when the respondent amended the claim no.1, the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- remained the same. In so far as the quantity for first part of claim no.1 is concerned, the respondent claimed the quantity of 399943.59 as per bill no.7. The estimated quantity in the bill of quantity (BOQ) was provided at Rs.3,00,000/- and deviation in excess of 20% provided under the contract came to be 360000 cubic meters. The respondent made a claim for Rs.3,00,000/- cubic meters @Rs.90/- per cubic meter. The respondent made a claim for quantity i.e. 399943.59 cubic meters @ Rs.138/- per cubic meter. The respondent accordingly increased the claim in respect of the claim no.1 from Rs.33,22,903.59/- to Rs.52,41,314.87/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the learned arbitrator at page 215 of the impugned award while dealing with the reconciliation statement dated 9th March 2001 has recorded that “this statement therefore is binding on both the parties as far as quantities executed by the respondent into the reclamation and bund works, except that, in the last column as regards quantity of 705.107 cubic meters of fill material is concerned, it is mentioned that the petitioner herein may consider the said quantity.” Learned counsel submits that once it is held that the quantities mentioned in the reconciliation statement were correct, the learned arbitrator could not have allowed any claim for inflated quantities. The award shows perversity on the face of the award. 32. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned arbitrator could not have considered 9000 cubic meters of heaved portion as reclaimed area under the contract. He submits that the claim no.1 was beyond the scope of reference. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner in its written statement has specifically denied the amended claim nos.1, 2 and 3 and had disputed the correctness of modified claim no.1, the learned arbitrator has rendered a perverse finding that the corrected statement is not refuted by the petitioner. 33. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner in its written statement has specifically denied the amended claim nos.1, 2 and 3 and had disputed the correctness of modified claim no.1, the learned arbitrator has rendered a perverse finding that the corrected statement is not refuted by the petitioner. 33. Insofar as the amended application dated 1st September 2008 made by the respondent is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amendment had not been served upon the petitioner. Learned arbitrator, however, allowed the said application for amendment on 12th September 2008. The petitioner had requested for time to file its reply for opposing the said amendment application. No application for condonation of delay in filing the said application for amendment was made by the respondent. Though the petitioner objected to the said amendment on the ground of gross delay, the application was allowed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, by the learned arbitrator permitting the respondent to carry out such amendment. The petitioner had already completed its arguments. Learned arbitrator did not record these objections raised by the petitioner. He submits that the amendment carried out by the respondent was not served upon the petitioner. On 20th October 2008, the learned arbitrator had declared that the award would be declared on 27th November 2008 and for that purpose, the meeting would be held on 27th November 2008. On 20th October 2008, both the parties closed their case. No meeting was called on 27th November 2008. Learned counsel submits that by letter dated 8th December 2008, the learned arbitrator had informed the parties that the award would be declared on 16th December 2008. 34. He submits that on 24th December 2008, the petitioner requested the learned arbitrator for liberty to file its reply to the amendment allowed by the learned arbitrator. Learned arbitrator thereafter fixed the hearing for filing of the reply by the petitioner to the application for amendment on 9th January 2009. Learned counsel submits that since the learned arbitrator had already allowed the amendment on 12th September 2008 itself, the question of keeping any hearing on 9th January 2009 did not arise. Learned counsel submits that on 6th January 2009, the petitioner was compelled to place its objections on record in the form of reply to the amendment application. Learned counsel submits that since the learned arbitrator had already allowed the amendment on 12th September 2008 itself, the question of keeping any hearing on 9th January 2009 did not arise. Learned counsel submits that on 6th January 2009, the petitioner was compelled to place its objections on record in the form of reply to the amendment application. The petitioner also recorded that the arguments were completed and award was to be declared on 27th November 2008. Learned arbitrator postponed the pronouncement of the award to 16th December 2008. He submits that the application for amendment was deemed to have been abandoned and therefore there was no question of having any fresh hearing. Till 6th January 2009, the respondent had not carried out any amendment though permitted by the learned arbitrator. 35. Learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator by an order dated 12th January 2009 confirmed that the amendment application had been decided by his order dated 10th September 2008. However, on 12th January 2009, the learned arbitrator permitted the respondent to carry out amendment by 19th January 2009 and directed the petitioner to file reply to it by 22nd January 2009. The petitioner accordingly filed its written statement under protest on 4th March 2009. Thereafter, no hearing was granted. He submits that the learned arbitrator did not frame any issue of jurisdiction though pleaded in its written statement filed on 4th March 2009. The petitioner was thus deprived of an opportunity to present its case after filing the written statement to the second amendment. He submits that the award is in violation of the principles of natural justice. All the claims have been awarded by the learned arbitrator on the basis of the second amendment and not on the basis of the original claim or the additional statement of claim dated 14th June 2003. 36. Insofar as the issue no.38 framed and discussed by the learned arbitrator is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim as amended by the second amendment was barred by law of limitation. The finding of the learned arbitrator that the demand for correct rates in the second amendment would not mean that the claims were barred by law of limitation is totally perverse and shows non-application of mind. The finding on limitation is also contrary to the law. 37. The finding of the learned arbitrator that the demand for correct rates in the second amendment would not mean that the claims were barred by law of limitation is totally perverse and shows non-application of mind. The finding on limitation is also contrary to the law. 37. In so far as the claim for recovery of Rs.8,00,000/- made by the respondent towards removal of heaved up portion is concerned, the learned arbitrator had decided the said claim while discussing the claim under issue nos.23 and 13. Learned counsel submits that the area of 9000 cubic meters could not have been considered to be reclaimed as a part of the contractual work done under the contract. The said portion was required to be removed by the respondent at its own cost. Since the respondent did not remove the heaved portion, the petitioner was entitled to withheld an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for removal of the said heaved up portion. The finding of the learned arbitrator in the award allowing the said claim is totally perverse and contrary to the contract. He submits that the learned arbitrator has placed reliance on the affidavit of Mr. V.T. Ganpule whose evidence was restricted to the contractual mode of measurement to be made to the respondent. He invited my attention to the letter dated 29th March 1997 which was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent in which it was specifically recorded by the petitioner that the heaved up area where filling was not done and it was not permissible to take into consideration. He submits that the heaving was expected and was to be controlled or rectified by the respondent exclusively at its own cost. The impugned award allowing the said claim is contrary to the provisions of the contract. 38. Insofar as the claim for Rs.3,00,000/- which was withheld for royalty is concerned, learned counsel submits that the said claim is discussed in issue nos.17 and 24 of the impugned award. He submits that though there was no pleading in support of the said claim for Rs.3,00,000/- regarding payment of royalty charges, the learned arbitrator had allowed the said claim illegally. He submits that under clause 47 of the General Conditions of Contract, it provided for royalty charges will have to be paid in connection with obtaining the filling material. He submits that though there was no pleading in support of the said claim for Rs.3,00,000/- regarding payment of royalty charges, the learned arbitrator had allowed the said claim illegally. He submits that under clause 47 of the General Conditions of Contract, it provided for royalty charges will have to be paid in connection with obtaining the filling material. The respondent did not produce any evidence in support of its claim that the respondent was not liable to pay royalty on filling material. The respondent itself had filed a Writ Petition in this Court. He submits that the learned arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to pay royalty charges to the respondent. 39. Learned counsel submits that since the learned arbitrator has allowed the claims as made in the second amendment which were barred by law of limitation and since it is not possible to severe the good portion of award, if any, from the bad portion of the award, the entire award is liable to be set aside on that ground. He submits that limitation would not relate back to the date of receipt of notice invoking arbitration agreement in this case. The finding of the learned arbitrator that the claims were not barred by law of limitation is contrary to the judgments laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court. 40. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to clauses 43, 44 and 45 of the contract which provides for rates due to additions and alterations, for variation exceeding 20% etc. He submits that the rates provided in the BOQ were inclusive of the loss of material due to sinking etc. Learned counsel submits that though the 7th RA bill was submitted by the respondent which was last bill on 15th April 1997, the respondent did not make any such claim in the said bill. A completion certificate was already issued on 26th February 1997. The respondent, however, made this claim for the first time only on 8th April 1999. The RA bill 5 to 7 was submitted by the respondent only after submission of the completion certificate. 41. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had not issued any variation order as contemplated under clause 43 of the contract. The respondent, however, made this claim for the first time only on 8th April 1999. The RA bill 5 to 7 was submitted by the respondent only after submission of the completion certificate. 41. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had not issued any variation order as contemplated under clause 43 of the contract. Even if any additional rates are required to be fixed under clause 43, learned arbitrator has decided contrary to the said clause of the contract and accepted the rates as demanded by the respondent without following the mandatory procedure under the said clause. Though the learned arbitrator has recorded the said clause in the award, the learned arbitrator had allowed the amount as claimed by the respondent only after deducting Rs.8,00,000/-. Learned arbitrator has considered the rate of Rs.138/- per cubic meter which was offered by the petitioner to some other contractor, which rate was not applicable to the work in question. Though the petitioner had raised all these objections about non-compliance of mandatory procedure under clauses 43 and 44 of the contract, the learned arbitrator did not consider the submission made by the petitioner in the impugned award and has allowed the prohibited claim. The award is thus in conflict with the public policy. 42. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause 3 of the contract provides for scope of work. Simpson Rule was to be applied for the purpose of measurement. No allowance for extra quantity for sinking could have been considered. Clause 8.2 of the said contract provides for mode of measurement. Reliance is also placed on preamble of the contract. He submits that reconciliation carried out by the parties pursuant to the directions given by the learned arbitrator without prejudice to the rights and contentions, was not binding on the petitioner. He submits that even in the first amendment applied by the respondent, the respondent had made a claim at the rate of Rs.90/- per cubic meter. Only in the second amendment, the respondent made a claim at the rate of Rs.138/- per cubic meter that is after closure of the argument. CLAIM NO. 2 43. He submits that even in the first amendment applied by the respondent, the respondent had made a claim at the rate of Rs.90/- per cubic meter. Only in the second amendment, the respondent made a claim at the rate of Rs.138/- per cubic meter that is after closure of the argument. CLAIM NO. 2 43. In so far as claim no.2 i.e. claim for additional quantity of angular rock boulders to construct larger cross section of the rock bund than shown in the tender drawing is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the notice dated 8th April 1999 issued to the Chairman of the petitioner invoking arbitration agreement, the respondent had made this claim for Rs.17,11,000/- comprising of 11800 cubic meters @ Rs.145/- per cubic meter. In its claim filed before the learned arbitrator Shri Bhansali on 9th June 2000, the respondent, however, made a claim of Rs.11,60,046.11 for 8003.18 cubic meters @ Rs.145/- per cubic meter. The said claim was opposed by the petitioner by filing written statement on 27th September 2000. In its amended claim dated 16th April 2003, the respondent made a claim for Rs.28,89,536.14 comprising of 2200.32 cubic meters @ Rs.145/- per cubic meter and 10281.96 cubic meters @Rs.250/- per cubic meter claimed as market price. The petitioner filed an additional written statement opposing the said amended claim of Rs.64,38,716.84/-. 44. On 19th January 2009, the respondent made further amendment to claim no.2 for Rs.72,72,207.30/-. The said amount was claimed comprising of 34800 cubic meters @ Rs.145/- per cubic meter and 11204.90 MT @Rs.545.49 per MT as per DSR rate. The respondent deducted the sum of Rs.38,85,953.60/- which was paid by the petitioner to the respondent out of the claim amount of Rs.1,11,58,160/- and made a claim of Rs.72,72,207.30/-. The petitioner opposed the said claim by filing additional written statement. Learned arbitrator framed various issues. The learned arbitrator has discussed the said claim under issue nos.18, 25, 39, 36 and 37 and has allowed the said claim. 45. He submits that the original claim no.2 made by the respondent was only for Rs.11,60,046.11/- for providing rock angular boulder of 10 kgs. to 200 kgs. for bund wall as per specific scope of work and drawings. The respondent had claimed 8003.18 cubic meters in respect of claim no.2. The rate originally claimed by the respondent under claim no.2 was at Rs.145/- per cubic meter. to 200 kgs. for bund wall as per specific scope of work and drawings. The respondent had claimed 8003.18 cubic meters in respect of claim no.2. The rate originally claimed by the respondent under claim no.2 was at Rs.145/- per cubic meter. In the first amendment, the claim no.2 was calculated on the basis of Rs.145/- per cubic meter as well as Rs.250/- per cubic meter. In the second amendment, the claim no.2 was calculated on the basis of Rs.145/- per cubic meter and Rs.545.49 per cubic meter. 46. Learned counsel submits that the respondent had failed to establish before the learned arbitrator the basis on which it had arrived at the quantity of 10281.96 cubic meters as additional quantity of rock bund over and above the estimated quantity mentioned in the tender. Similarly, there was no evidence produced by the respondent for proving the correctness of the rate of Rs.250/- per cubic meter claimed by the respondent in respect of additional quantity of rock bund of 10281.96 cubic meters. The respondent also did not prove that the respondent had completed the work of 39281 cubic meters in respect of the said claim no.2. 47. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the measurements in the contract were to be taken from initial ground level and not below the ground level. The respondent had made the original claim for the construction of bund wall only on the basis of stones of 10 kgs. to 200 kgs. It was not the case of the respondent in the original claim that they were entitled to payment of 1 to 1.5 ton boulders as an extra item. He submits that the claim nos. 2 and 3 were overlapping and were duplicated claims. Learned arbitrator has awarded both the claims which shows perversity and patent illegality on the face of the award. 48. Learned counsel submits that though the respondent had not followed the prescribed procedure under clause 43 of the contract and had failed to produce any material to claim the quantity of the alleged extra work in respect of the claims filed before the learned arbitrator, the learned arbitrator has allowed the claim contrary to the terms of the contract. 48. Learned counsel submits that though the respondent had not followed the prescribed procedure under clause 43 of the contract and had failed to produce any material to claim the quantity of the alleged extra work in respect of the claims filed before the learned arbitrator, the learned arbitrator has allowed the claim contrary to the terms of the contract. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had specifically denied and disputed the amended claim no.2, the learned arbitrator has rendered perverse finding that the petitioner had not refuted the amended claim no.2. 49. On the issue of limitation, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the learned arbitrator that the respondent had not changed the quantity is totally perverse and contrary to the amendment application made and allowed by the learned arbitrator. The award discloses patent illegality on the face of the award. 50. Learned counsel submits that before making the claim no.2, the respondent did not follow the procedure provided for claiming any variations. The respondent had not submitted any rate analysis. The claim made by the respondent for bund wall was not based on the tender drawings. Mr. Ganpule who was examined as a witness by the respondent had admitted that as per drawings, the side slope was 1:1. The petitioner had not issued any variation order. In the 5th RA bill, no such claim was made which was submitted on 10th March 1997. The said bill was returned to the petitioner by the respondent with a direction to resubmit the same. On 21st March 1997, the respondent had submitted 6th RA bill. In the said 6th RA bill, the respondent had admitted the rate @ Rs.250/-. He submits that on 29th March 1997, the petitioner had disputed the quantity as per slope 1:1. All the joint measurements recorded 1:1 slope. 51. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the District Schedule Rates of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg were not applicable to this contract, learned arbitrator has applied the said schedule rates. Learned arbitrator has acted contrary to the terms of the contract. All the joint measurements recorded 1:1 slope. 51. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the District Schedule Rates of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg were not applicable to this contract, learned arbitrator has applied the said schedule rates. Learned arbitrator has acted contrary to the terms of the contract. Learned counsel invited my attention to the Minutes of Meeting held between the parties in which the respondent agreed not to charge any extra amount for heavy boulders and submits that the learned arbitrator has decided contrary to the said agreement arrived at in the Minutes of Meeting which was an admitted document. CLAIM NO.3 52. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned arbitrator totally overlooked the provisions of the contract provided for mode of measurement by Simpsons formula. The respondent themselves had accepted reconciliation quantity made on 9th March, 2001. The petitioner had determined the agreed quantities based on the contractual provisions. As regards reclamation work, the petitioner had not agreed to quantity of Rs.49,849.90 cubic meters. Similarly as regards bund wall, the petitioner had not agreed to the quantity of 12,482.57 cubic meters for the bund wall above ground level and the quantity 57,600 cubic meters in the bund wall below ground level of the sea bed as the quantities were not based on joint measurements and joint records mentioned by the parties. He submits that though the respondent did not produce any evidence to prove the disputed quantities in terms of cubic meters which were originally claimed and altered by the amendments, the learned arbitrator has allowed the entire quantities as claimed by the respondent without evidence. 53. Learned counsel submits that under the terms of the contract, the petitioner was liable to make payment to the respondent in respect of slope of 1:1. The respondent achieved bund slope at 1:2 and not 1:1 as required by the contract. The respondent themselves had accepted and agreed that the bund slope required was 1:1 and not 1:2. The respondent themselves in the 5th RA Bill had claimed side slope of 1:1 for bund wall which bill was submitted by the respondent on 10th March, 1997 which was after completion of the work. The award of the learned arbitrator allowing the claim of the respondent based on slope 1:2 is thus contrary to the provisions of the contract and is in conflict with public policy. The award of the learned arbitrator allowing the claim of the respondent based on slope 1:2 is thus contrary to the provisions of the contract and is in conflict with public policy. He submits that the learned arbitrator ignored the provisions of the contract. The General Specifications clauses 6, 7 and 9 did not make any reference whatsoever to materials brought to side by trucks and dumpers. The said provisions stipulates the measurement for the purpose of payment would be from the ground level. The joint survey report was contemplated by clauses 8 and 9 of General Specifications. The 7th RA Bill was submitted on 15th April, 1997. The joint survey record was completed on 10th March, 1997. The said joint survey report was conclusive evidence of the fact that the total reclamation work was 3,63,027.435 cubic meters and for bund wall the quantity was 26.799.682 cubic meters. The learned arbitrator ignored the joint survey record maintained by the parties under the provisions of the contract and awarded exorbitant quantity based on no evidence and contrary to the joint survey record. 54. Learned counsel submits that the respondent had been already paid a sum of Rs.3,65,56,887.16 on the basis of 7 RA Bills submitted by them. The petitioner had already made payment on the basis of levels taken from time to time in accordance with the contract. The learned arbitrator could not have considered the truck loads while allowing the said claims in favour of the respondent. The respondent had never called upon the engineer of the petitioner to make calculations as per truck loads. The learned arbitrator overlooked the register of the trips made by dumpers and trucks. The respondent did not submit a final bill. The 7th RA Bill submitted by the respondent was the last bill submitted by them. It was only the final bill which determines the quantum on the basis of the Simpson formula. No reasons are rendered by the learned arbitrator as to how the quantum in respect of the reclamation, bund wall, bund slope of 1:2 was derived from truck loads. Learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator totally overlooked the provisions of the contract which did not stipulate any payment for any material below ground level. 55. No reasons are rendered by the learned arbitrator as to how the quantum in respect of the reclamation, bund wall, bund slope of 1:2 was derived from truck loads. Learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator totally overlooked the provisions of the contract which did not stipulate any payment for any material below ground level. 55. Insofar as rates awarded by the learned arbitrator in respect of claim no.3 is concerned, learned counsel submits that the respondent did not produce any evidence in support of their claims for higher rates before the learned arbitrator. DSR rates of Harbour Division were not provided for in the contract and could not have been applied for calculating rates by the respondent or by the learned arbitrator while allowing the said claim. The respondent had not even discussed the basis on which the rates were sought to be proved by the respondent in respect of claim no.3. The rates awarded by the learned arbitrator is not in accordance with the contract but beyond the terms of the contract. 56. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had already paid to the respondent for 26,799.68 cubic meters at the contractual rate of Rs.145 per cubic meter which rate had been accepted by the respondent. He submits that the respondent was not entitled to 20% variation as claimed by them in the second amendment. Learned counsel submits that the quantity of 34,800 cubic meters and quantity in excess of 20% of variation limit was not mentioned by the respondent in the first amendment to the statement of claim. Only in the second amendment, the respondent had claimed the said quantity without producing any material on record in support of the said claim. Though the petitioner had challenged the rate analysis given by the respondent in the amended statement of claim, the learned arbitrator rendered a perverse finding that there was no such challenge by the petitioner. 57. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had visited the site before submission of tender. The rates provided in the contract covered the additional quantity of material, if any, sunk. The respondent had made a claim only after submission of the completion certificate. He submits that there was no provision in the BOQ insofar as the claim no.3 as made by the respondent is concerned. The rates provided in the contract covered the additional quantity of material, if any, sunk. The respondent had made a claim only after submission of the completion certificate. He submits that there was no provision in the BOQ insofar as the claim no.3 as made by the respondent is concerned. The respondent has connected the claim no.3 with claim no.2 which is contrary to the terms of the contract. Since there was no provision made in the BOQ in respect of the claim made under claim no.3, no measurement was carried out by the parties at all as contemplated under the terms of the contract. The respondent did not submit any rate analysis. The petitioner had not ordered any variation. 58. Learned counsel submits that claim no.3 was specifically prohibited under clause 3 of the general specifications. Learned arbitrator by allowing the prohibited claim has exceeded his jurisdiction. The award thus is contrary to the terms of the contract and is in conflict with the public policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that loss of material, if any, in water was not payable separately under the terms of the contract. 59. He submits that under the Simpson Rule applicable under the contract, it was not possible to measure the quantity drown in water. The entire claim was disputed by the petitioner in toto. Learned counsel placed reliance on clauses 2, 3 and 9 of the General Specifications which provided for prohibition for making any such payment. He submits that the claims were contrary to clauses 43, 44 and 45 of the contract. The rates demanded by the respondent were not in accordance with the said provision. The award is contrary to and overlooking the provision of the contract. Learned arbitrator overlooked the discussions arrived at in the Minutes of Meeting on some frivolous grounds. 60. Mr. Bhise, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Engineering Co. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., reported in AIR 1992 SC 232 and in particular paragraphs 26 to 31 and would submit that the learned arbitrator could not decide contrary to the terms of the contract and could not act arbitrarily. 61. Per contra, Mr. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., reported in AIR 1992 SC 232 and in particular paragraphs 26 to 31 and would submit that the learned arbitrator could not decide contrary to the terms of the contract and could not act arbitrarily. 61. Per contra, Mr. Bharucha, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the learned arbitrator has rendered various findings of fact which are not perverse and thus no interference is warranted with such findings of fact. In so far as the claim no.1 is concerned, he submits that statement of the reconcile quantity filed by the parties before the learned arbitrator was binding on both the parties. It was not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner would not consider the jointly recorded quantity at all. The learned arbitrator had recorded the finding that the said statement was binding on both the parties. This Court cannot interfere with such finding of fact. 62. Learned senior counsel submits that insofar as the rate of Rs.138/- per cubic meter allowed by the learned arbitrator is concerned, the said rate has been awarded by the learned arbitrator based on the rate claimed by the petitioner itself in the counter claim against the respondent after reducing the amount against the dredging. Learned arbitrator had rightly considered the said rate and cannot be challenged by the petitioner. He submits that under clause 3.3 of the contract, additional dumping material was anticipated. The petitioner had asked the respondent for fast dumping of the material and as a result thereof, the additional quantity was required to be used. The respondent was not responsible for the same. The claim thus made by the respondent for additional quantity or for bigger size of the boulders was justified. He submits that the learned arbitrator had rightly considered the joint quantity arrived at between the parties. The petitioner cannot thus challenge the said finding before the learned arbitrator. 63. Insofar as the claim no.2 is concerned, the learned senior counsel invited my attention to page 304 of the contract which provides for work sketch showing slope as 1:1. He submits that the sketch drawn in the contract was not drawn seriously. The rock bund was not designed on sound principle of Engineering. The learned arbitrator, after considering the oral evidence of Mr. He submits that the sketch drawn in the contract was not drawn seriously. The rock bund was not designed on sound principle of Engineering. The learned arbitrator, after considering the oral evidence of Mr. Ganpule who was an expert, has rightly allowed the claim and has rendered a finding that the slope 1:1 was not possible. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence considered by the learned arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. He submits that there was no dispute about the actual quantity. The petitioner wanted to pay for 1:1 slope. The respondent had demanded the additional quantity in view of 1:2 slope. The finding rendered by the learned arbitrator was based on pure question of fact. The learned arbitrator has already rejected the claim for extra lead and escalation. This Court cannot interfere with such finding of fact rendered by the learned arbitrator. 64. Insofar as the claim no.3 is concerned, learned senior counsel submits that though the respondent had used big boulders for the work carried out under claim no.2, the respondent had claimed for the quantity provided in the BOQ rate plus 20% excess at the rate provided in the BOQ. He submits that insofar as the claim no.3 is concerned, the respondent had used the big size boulders for under ground works. The Minutes of meeting relied upon by the petitioner were not applicable since the same could not be considered as a binding contract between the parties. The interpretation of the contract rendered by the learned arbitrator is a possible interpretation and cannot be interfered with by this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 65. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner had only denied the quantity on the ground that the quantity claimed by the respondent was for the work below the ground level. The petitioner had not disputed the measurement of quantity as claimed by the respondent. Learned arbitrator has rightly rendered a finding to that effect which cannot be interfered with. Learned arbitrator has also considered the progress report in the impugned award which was jointly signed by both the parties. 66. Insofar as the rates applied by the learned arbitrator is concerned, learned senior counsel submits that the District Schedule Rate relied upon by the respondent and followed by the learned arbitrator was also the government approved rate. Learned arbitrator has also considered the progress report in the impugned award which was jointly signed by both the parties. 66. Insofar as the rates applied by the learned arbitrator is concerned, learned senior counsel submits that the District Schedule Rate relied upon by the respondent and followed by the learned arbitrator was also the government approved rate. Learned arbitrator had applied the District Schedule Rates of Ratnagiri, Harbour Division. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence considered by the learned arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 67. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned arbitrator could not have allowed the amendment to the statement of claim in the manner permitted by the learned arbitrator is concerned, he invited my attention to the statement of claim and also to the amendment application and would submit that the respondent had reserved the right to amend its claim. Once such liberty was reserved by the respondent, the learned arbitrator was justified in allowing the application for amendment. He submits that such amendment even otherwise was permissible under Section 23 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner thus cannot challenge such amendment which was rightly allowed by the learned arbitrator. JUDGMENT : By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the said Arbitration Act') the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 25th April, 2009 passed by the arbitral tribunal allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2. The petitioner was the original respondent to statement of claim and was the claimant to the counter claim before the learned arbitrator. The respondent herein was the original claimant to the statement of claim and was the respondent to the counter claim. 3. On or about 21st March, 1996, the petitioner invited tenders for reclamation behind service berth in the quadrangle between the container berth approach and service berth approach. The petitioner issued amendment to the tender documents on 3rd April, 1996 which was to be treated as part of the said contract. Some of the terms and conditions of the original contract were modified and incorporated as a part of the contract. On 11th April, 1996 the respondent submitted its bid. The petitioner issued amendment to the tender documents on 3rd April, 1996 which was to be treated as part of the said contract. Some of the terms and conditions of the original contract were modified and incorporated as a part of the contract. On 11th April, 1996 the respondent submitted its bid. On 27th May, 1996 the respondent was awarded the contract by the petitioner. The date of commencement of work was 1st June, 1996 and the stipulated date of completion was 28th February, 1997. 4. On 18th May, 1996 the respondent by its letter confirmed that it would provide the stone material as per provisions of tender and it would be entitled to payment for the work done between initial bed level and final level of work done. The respondent also informed the petitioner that the respondent had appointed Dr. R.K. Katti as its consultant. 5. On 27th February, 1997, the respondent was issued work completion certificate by the petitioner with a snag list. It would be the case of the petitioner that there were several incomplete items which the respondent had to comply with after issuing the said work completion certificate which the respondent failed and neglected to comply with by complying incomplete items as mentioned in the said slag list. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of the work, the respondent submitted its 5th, 6th and 7th running account bill to the petitioner. By letter date 29th January, 1998 the petitioner asked the respondent to submit its final bill but the respondent failed and neglected to submit the final bill. 7. On 2nd February, 1998 the respondent made various claims before the Senior Manager (PPD) of the petitioner. By letter dated 23rd February, 1998, the Senior Manager (PPD) of the petitioner refused to entertain the claims of the respondent. On 5th March, 1998 the respondent filed an appeal before the Chief Manager (PPD) of the petitioner against the decision of the Senior Manager (PPD) of the petitioner. 8. On 8th April, 1999 the respondent quantified its claim and called upon the petitioner to settle the same making it clear that in case of failure to settle the claim, it would be considered that the disputes and differences had arisen and the respondent would proceed as per the provisions of contract. In the said claim, the respondent claimed the amount of Rs.3,64,51,616.60. In the said claim, the respondent claimed the amount of Rs.3,64,51,616.60. On 28th April, 1999, the respondent recorded the alleged failure on the part of the petitioner to pay its dues and therefore invoked the provisions of clause 65 of the contract and called upon the petitioner to appoint arbitrator. 9. The Manager (PPD) of the petitioner by its letter dated 20th October, 1999 to the respondent recorded that no proposal was submitted by the respondent for settling the disputes and the final bill was proceeded as per the contract provisions and retention money would be released after submission of documents as mentioned and amount of Rs. 8 lacs was withheld. The respondent by its letter dated 12th December, 1999 placed on record that it had no claims other than the list of dues submitted by its letter dated 8th April, 1999. 10. On 20th April, 2000 Mr. R.K. Bhansali was appointed as a sole arbitrator. On 19th June, 2000, the respondent filed its statement of claim before the learned arbitrator Mr. R.K. Bhansali. The respondent made six claims including interest totalling to Rs.4,31,72,103.15. No pleadings were filed by the respondent alongwith the said statement. The petitioner filed its written statement and counter claim on 27th September, 2000. The arbitration proceedings were held before said Mr. R.K. Bhansali on 26th May, 2000, 12th December, 2000, 13th December, 2000, 20th January, 2001 and 25th August, 2001. Both parties agreed before the learned arbitrator that they would not lead oral evidence. The learned arbitrator recorded the said statement in the minutes of the meeting held on 20th January, 2001. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent tried every attempt to delay the arbitration proceedings before the said Mr. R.K. Bhansali on one or the other ground though the arguments by both parties were over. On 19th April, 2002 the learned arbitrator Mr. R.K. Bhansali resigned. After resignation of Mr. R.K. Bhansali as a sole arbitrator, the retired judge of this court was appointed as a sole arbitrator. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that the arbitration meetings were held on 30th October, 2002, 17th February, 2003, 21st April, 2003, 16th May, 2003, 28th August, 2003 and 16th October, 2003. The respondent submitted an additional statement of claim on 14th June, 2003 without making any application for amendment of the statement of claim. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that the arbitration meetings were held on 30th October, 2002, 17th February, 2003, 21st April, 2003, 16th May, 2003, 28th August, 2003 and 16th October, 2003. The respondent submitted an additional statement of claim on 14th June, 2003 without making any application for amendment of the statement of claim. The petitioner objected to the filing of this additional statement of claim without making any application for amendment. The respondent thereafter filed an application for amendment of the statement of claim on 18th December, 2003. By an order dated 18th December, 2003, amendment application filed by the respondent came to be rejected by the learned arbitrator. However, the additional statement of claim dated 14th June, 2003 remained on record. In the said amendment, the respondent enhanced the claim amount insofar as claim nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. The respondent did not make any amendment in the claim amount insofar as claim nos. 1 and 4 are concerned. The respondent reduced the claim amount insofar as claim no.5 i.e. idle charges of the man and machinery are concerned. It is the case of the petitioner that as and by way of abundant caution, the petitioner filed additional written statement dated 1st March, 2004 to the additional statement of claim dated 14th June, 2003 and denied the claims filed by the respondent. 12. On 19th January, 2004, the respondent filed an application for seeking permission to allow the oral evidence of Dr. R.K. Katti which application was opposed by the petitioner. On 23rd January, 2004 the respondent made an application before the learned arbitrator stating that it had reconsidered its stand and decided not to insist on leading oral evidence of Dr. R.K. Katti. By an order dated 24th January, 2004 the learned arbitrator however permitted the respondent to examine Dr. R.K. Katti as its witness and directed the respondent to file his affidavit of evidence. 13. On 16th June, 2004 the respondent filed an affidavit of one Mr. Prakash Falari as their expert witness. The learned arbitrator permitted the respondent to lead oral evidence of the said Mr. Prakash Falari. The said Mr. Prakash Falari however during the pendency of his cross examination informed the learned arbitrator that he would not be available for evidence. The respondent thereafter sought permission to examine Mr. V.T. Ganpule. Prakash Falari as their expert witness. The learned arbitrator permitted the respondent to lead oral evidence of the said Mr. Prakash Falari. The said Mr. Prakash Falari however during the pendency of his cross examination informed the learned arbitrator that he would not be available for evidence. The respondent thereafter sought permission to examine Mr. V.T. Ganpule. The learned arbitrator permitted the respondent to file affidavit of evidence of Mr. V.T. Ganpule. The respondent filed fresh affidavit of Mr. V.T. Ganpule on 6th January, 2005 who was cross examined by the petitioner. 14. It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of the cross examination of Mr. V.T. Ganpule, the respondent commenced its oral argument. The petitioner thereafter commenced its argument and pointed out that the learned arbitrator could not look into the additional statement of claim dated 14th June, 2003 as application for amendment of the respondent was already rejected by the learned arbitrator. On 11th April, 2008, the learned arbitrator suo moto reviewed his earlier order dated 18th December, 2003 on the ground that there was a clerical or typographical mistake in the order dated 18th December, 2003. The learned arbitrator however did not direct that the additional statement of claim was to be taken on record. 15. On 14th August, 2008, the petitioner completed its arguments before the learned arbitrator. The respondent commenced its arguments in rejoinder on 10th September, 2008. On 10th September, 2008 the respondent filed an application dated 1st September, 2008 for amendment of the claims. The said application was served upon the petitioner's advocate on 10th September, 2008. The petitioner objected to the amendment application being taken on record and insisted for filing reply to the same. The learned arbitrator however allowed the amendment application and directed the petitioner to file reply to the amendment application after allowing the said amendment. The respondent was directed to carry out the amendment within one week. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner pointed out to the learned arbitrator that the question of filing reply became redundant in view of the order of the learned arbitrator allowing amendment, the learned arbitrator however did not vacate and/or modify its order allowing the amendment application. 16. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner pointed out to the learned arbitrator that the question of filing reply became redundant in view of the order of the learned arbitrator allowing amendment, the learned arbitrator however did not vacate and/or modify its order allowing the amendment application. 16. On 23rd September, 2008 the respondent filed another application inter alia praying that the written arguments dated 9th September, 2008 of the respondent be treated as affidavit of evidence of Mr. Vijay Jaiswal, proprietor of the respondent and offered himself for cross examination by the petitioner. The petitioner by its reply dated 20th October, 2008 opposed the application on various grounds. By an order dated 20th October, 2008, the learned arbitrator rejected the said application dated 23rd September, 2008 to examine Mr. Vijay Jaiswal as its witness. The learned arbitrator thereafter closed the proceedings for declaring an award on 27th November, 2008 at 2.30 p.m. 17. The arbitral tribunal by his letter dated 8th December, 2008 informed the parties that the award would be declared on 16th December, 2008, however the award was not pronounced on that day. On 12th January, 2009 a meeting was fixed by the learned arbitrator. It is the case of petitioner till 12th January, 2009 the respondent had not carried out amendment to the statement of claim which was allowed by the learned arbitrator on 12th September, 2008. By an order dated 12th January, 2009 the learned arbitrator directed the respondent to carry out the amendment as specified in the amendment application dated 1st September, 2008 on or before 19th January, 2009. It is the case of the petitioner that though the argument was over and the matter was closed for award, the respondent was permitted to further amend the statement of claim. 18. By the said amendment allowed on 12th September, 2008, the respondent inflated the claim amount insofar as claim nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned substantially than that what was already amended pursuant to the earlier amendment allowed by the learned arbitrator. The respondent served upon the petitioner the said amended statement of claim. On 4th March, 2009, the petitioner filed its additional written statement to the amended statement of claim dated 19th January, 2009. 19. On 16th March, 2009 the respondent filed its rejoinder to the additional written statement before the learned arbitrator. The respondent served upon the petitioner the said amended statement of claim. On 4th March, 2009, the petitioner filed its additional written statement to the amended statement of claim dated 19th January, 2009. 19. On 16th March, 2009 the respondent filed its rejoinder to the additional written statement before the learned arbitrator. On 24th March, 2009 and 1st April, 2009 the learned arbitrator framed additional issues and closed the matter for passing of the award. It is the case of the petitioner that no hearing was granted or conducted on the new claims/inflated claims introduced by the amendments allowed on 12th January, 2009 by the learned arbitrator. 20. On 25th April, 2009 the learned arbitrator made an award directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,06,872.26 against the claim nos. 1, 2 and 3 and allowed the interest at the rate of 14% per annum on the said amount from 28th February, 1997 till realization and further awarded Rs.14,00,000/- by way of cost. The learned arbitrator rejected the counter claims made by the petitioner. The petitioner has impugned the arbitral award insofar as claim nos. 1, 2 and 3 including the claim for interest and arbitration cost and insofar as counter claims of the petitioner are rejected by the learned arbitrator. 21. Mr. Milan Bhise, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a chart for consideration of this court to demonstrate the amount and quantity claimed by the respondent on different dates before the chairman of the petitioner, before the learned arbitrator from time to time in various amendment application. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the arbitration proceedings had already commenced when the respondent had invoked arbitration agreement and had issued a notice dated 28th April, 1998 to the chairman of the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings had commenced in respect of such disputes which were made in the said notice and the limitation had stopped in respect of such claims on the date of receipt of the said notice for appointment of arbitrator in view of section 21 of the said Arbitration Act. Learned counsel submits that by the amendment dated 18th December, 2003 filed by the respondent before the learned arbitrator, the respondent had not only increased the quantity but also increased the amount substantially. Learned counsel submits that by the amendment dated 18th December, 2003 filed by the respondent before the learned arbitrator, the respondent had not only increased the quantity but also increased the amount substantially. Learned counsel submits that on the date of making such application for amendment of the claim, the claim arising out of the additional quantity and the additional amount were already barred by law of limitation. Though the learned arbitrator was empowered to allow the amendment to the statement of claim, the learned arbitrator could not have allowed the amendment in respect of the additional claims which were already barred by limitation. 23. Mr. Bhise, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned arbitrator has allowed the claims which were beyond the scope of reference and also contract awarded to the respondent. He submits that the learned arbitrator has framed issues which even did not arise under the contract awarded to the respondent and has rendered an award on such issues. Learned counsel invited my attention to the chart submitted by the petitioner to show as to how all the three claims were amended from time to time by the respondent before the learned arbitrator illegally and awarded by the learned arbitrator contrary to law and without application of mind. He submits that the respondent had not only amended the quantity of the claims originally made in the notice invoking the arbitration agreement but also enhanced the claim amount in the amendment. He submits that the respondent has inflated claims from time to time without any justification. 24. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had raised a specific plea in the written statement that the claims made by the respondent were beyond the scope of contract, learned arbitrator has allowed most of the claims made by the respondent without considering the plea of the petitioner on the issue of jurisdiction and has travelled beyond the scope of reference and contract. He submits that the findings rendered by the learned arbitrator that the amendments did not change the quantity of the work but the changes were made only in the rate of material is totally perverse and shows an error apparent on the face of the award. He submits that the findings rendered by the learned arbitrator that the amendments did not change the quantity of the work but the changes were made only in the rate of material is totally perverse and shows an error apparent on the face of the award. Learned counsel invited my attention to the various amendment applications filed by the respondent and would submit that the respondent had not only changed the quantities of the work but had also changed the basis of the claim. The learned arbitrator has overlooked the nature of the amendment sought by the respondent and allowed by the learned arbitrator while deciding this issue and has committed an error which is patently illegal on the face of the award. 25. He submits that the impugned amendments allowed by the learned arbitrator are contrary to section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submits that since the respondent had invoked arbitration agreement in respect of the particular disputes quantified by the respondent in their notice dated 8th April, 1999 by annexing the index and events and had claimed specific amount, the arbitration proceedings had commenced in respect of such claims/disputes under section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and thus the respondent could not have amended the nature of dispute and the claims subsequently in future. He submits that the limitation in respect of the new claims made by the respondent and/or new quantities and new rates claimed by the respondent thereby enhancing the monetary claims could not have been permitted by the learned arbitrator. All such new claims and the claims arising out of the new quantity and new rates were beyond the scope of reference and thus beyond the jurisdiction of the learned arbitrator to entertain such claims and were note arbitrable. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had not explained for cause of delay in making amendment application dated 18th December, 2003. By the said application, the respondent had applied for amendment in respect of the claim no.2 and claim no.3. The contents of the said application for amendment were inconsistent in the final amendment sought by the respondent. By the said application, the respondent had applied for amendment in respect of the claim no.2 and claim no.3. The contents of the said application for amendment were inconsistent in the final amendment sought by the respondent. The petitioner had pointed out before the learned arbitrator that the respondent had not filed any statement of claim in accordance with law before the erstwhile arbitrator and there was no justification in making the application for amendment without explaining the gross delay. The learned arbitrator however has just taken casual approach in the matter by ignoring the objection raised by the petitioner opposing the amendment application filed by the respondent. 27. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had pointed out that the additional statement of claim was rejected by the learned arbitrator by order dated 18th December, 2003 and the first amendment could not be considered by the learned arbitrator, the learned arbitrator without any application being made by the respondent by its order dated 11th April, 2009 suo motu reviewed its own order dated 18th December, 2003 and recalled the said order. The learned arbitrator erroneously held that there was a clerical and typographical mistake in the order dated 18th December, 2003. The learned arbitrator however did not issue any direction stating that the said order dated 18th December, 2003 shall stand corrected. CLAIM NO. 1 28. Insofar as the claim no.1 i.e. “Illegally withheld balance payment and other amounts” is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the claim made before the Chairman of the petitioner in the notice dated 8th April 1999 by which the respondent had invoked arbitration agreement, the respondent had made a claim for 59943.586 cubic meters @ Rs.90/- per cubic meter i.e. the claim for the sum of Rs.53,94,922/-. On 9th June 2000, in the claim filed before the learned arbitrator Shri. R.K. Bhansali, the respondent claimed an amount of Rs.44,22,903.59 comprising of three parts i.e. (i) claim for Rs.33,22,903.59 for 36921.151 cubic meters @ Rs.90/- per cubic meter for quarry run material; (ii) claim for Rs.8,00,000/- which was alleged to have been withheld for removal of heaved up portion; and (iii) a claim for Rs.3,00,000/- which was alleged to have been withheld for royalty. 29. On 27th September 2000, the petitioner herein filed a written statement denying the said claims. 29. On 27th September 2000, the petitioner herein filed a written statement denying the said claims. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the learned arbitrator, a former Judge of this Court, the respondent made an amended claim dated 16th April 2003 for Rs.44,22,903.59/-. There was no change in so far as the quantity and the amounts claimed in the said amended claim than what was claimed before the earlier learned arbitrator Shri R.K. Bhansali on 9th June 2000. The said amendment was opposed by the petitioner by filing written statement before the learned arbitrator. On 19th January 2009, the respondent filed amended statement of claim. Insofar as claim no.1 is concerned, the respondent made a claim of Rs.63,41,314.87/- comprising of three parts i.e. (i) Claim for Rs.52,41,314.87/- for 36933.59 cubic meter @ Rs.138/- per cubic meter; (ii) claim for Rs.8,00,000/- towards the amount alleged to have been withheld for removal of heaved up portion; and (iii) claim for Rs.3,00,000/- towards the amount alleged to have been withheld for royalty. The petitioner filed an additional written statement denying the said amended claim. 30. Learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator has dealt with the claim no.1 in issue nos.22, 38, 13 and 23, 17 and 24, 36 and 37. 31. Learned counsel submits that in second amendment application, when the respondent amended the claim no.1, the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- remained the same. In so far as the quantity for first part of claim no.1 is concerned, the respondent claimed the quantity of 399943.59 as per bill no.7. The estimated quantity in the bill of quantity (BOQ) was provided at Rs.3,00,000/- and deviation in excess of 20% provided under the contract came to be 360000 cubic meters. The respondent made a claim for Rs.3,00,000/- cubic meters @Rs.90/- per cubic meter. The respondent made a claim for quantity i.e. 399943.59 cubic meters @ Rs.138/- per cubic meter. The respondent accordingly increased the claim in respect of the claim no.1 from Rs.33,22,903.59/- to Rs.52,41,314.87/-. The respondent made a claim for Rs.3,00,000/- cubic meters @Rs.90/- per cubic meter. The respondent made a claim for quantity i.e. 399943.59 cubic meters @ Rs.138/- per cubic meter. The respondent accordingly increased the claim in respect of the claim no.1 from Rs.33,22,903.59/- to Rs.52,41,314.87/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the learned arbitrator at page 215 of the impugned award while dealing with the reconciliation statement dated 9th March 2001 has recorded that “this statement therefore is binding on both the parties as far as quantities executed by the respondent into the reclamation and bund works, except that, in the last column as regards quantity of 705.107 cubic meters of fill material is concerned, it is mentioned that the petitioner herein may consider the said quantity.” Learned counsel submits that once it is held that the quantities mentioned in the reconciliation statement were correct, the learned arbitrator could not have allowed any claim for inflated quantities. The award shows perversity on the face of the award. 32. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned arbitrator could not have considered 9000 cubic meters of heaved portion as reclaimed area under the contract. He submits that the claim no.1 was beyond the scope of reference. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner in its written statement has specifically denied the amended claim nos.1, 2 and 3 and had disputed the correctness of modified claim no.1, the learned arbitrator has rendered a perverse finding that the corrected statement is not refuted by the petitioner. 33. Insofar as the amended application dated 1st September 2008 made by the respondent is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amendment had not been served upon the petitioner. Learned arbitrator, however, allowed the said application for amendment on 12th September 2008. The petitioner had requested for time to file its reply for opposing the said amendment application. No application for condonation of delay in filing the said application for amendment was made by the respondent. Though the petitioner objected to the said amendment on the ground of gross delay, the application was allowed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, by the learned arbitrator permitting the respondent to carry out such amendment. The petitioner had already completed its arguments. Learned arbitrator did not record these objections raised by the petitioner. Though the petitioner objected to the said amendment on the ground of gross delay, the application was allowed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, by the learned arbitrator permitting the respondent to carry out such amendment. The petitioner had already completed its arguments. Learned arbitrator did not record these objections raised by the petitioner. He submits that the amendment carried out by the respondent was not served upon the petitioner. On 20th October 2008, the learned arbitrator had declared that the award would be declared on 27th November 2008 and for that purpose, the meeting would be held on 27th November 2008. On 20th October 2008, both the parties closed their case. No meeting was called on 27th November 2008. Learned counsel submits that by letter dated 8th December 2008, the learned arbitrator had informed the parties that the award would be declared on 16th December 2008. 34. He submits that on 24th December 2008, the petitioner requested the learned arbitrator for liberty to file its reply to the amendment allowed by the learned arbitrator. Learned arbitrator thereafter fixed the hearing for filing of the reply by the petitioner to the application for amendment on 9th January 2009. Learned counsel submits that since the learned arbitrator had already allowed the amendment on 12th September 2008 itself, the question of keeping any hearing on 9th January 2009 did not arise. Learned counsel submits that on 6th January 2009, the petitioner was compelled to place its objections on record in the form of reply to the amendment application. The petitioner also recorded that the arguments were completed and award was to be declared on 27th November 2008. Learned arbitrator postponed the pronouncement of the award to 16th December 2008. He submits that the application for amendment was deemed to have been abandoned and therefore there was no question of having any fresh hearing. Till 6th January 2009, the respondent had not carried out any amendment though permitted by the learned arbitrator. 35. Learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator by an order dated 12th January 2009 confirmed that the amendment application had been decided by his order dated 10th September 2008. However, on 12th January 2009, the learned arbitrator permitted the respondent to carry out amendment by 19th January 2009 and directed the petitioner to file reply to it by 22nd January 2009. However, on 12th January 2009, the learned arbitrator permitted the respondent to carry out amendment by 19th January 2009 and directed the petitioner to file reply to it by 22nd January 2009. The petitioner accordingly filed its written statement under protest on 4th March 2009. Thereafter, no hearing was granted. He submits that the learned arbitrator did not frame any issue of jurisdiction though pleaded in its written statement filed on 4th March 2009. The petitioner was thus deprived of an opportunity to present its case after filing the written statement to the second amendment. He submits that the award is in violation of the principles of natural justice. All the claims have been awarded by the learned arbitrator on the basis of the second amendment and not on the basis of the original claim or the additional statement of claim dated 14th June 2003. 36. Insofar as the issue no.38 framed and discussed by the learned arbitrator is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim as amended by the second amendment was barred by law of limitation. The finding of the learned arbitrator that the demand for correct rates in the second amendment would not mean that the claims were barred by law of limitation is totally perverse and shows non-application of mind. The finding on limitation is also contrary to the law. 37. In so far as the claim for recovery of Rs.8,00,000/- made by the respondent towards removal of heaved up portion is concerned, the learned arbitrator had decided the said claim while discussing the claim under issue nos.23 and 13. Learned counsel submits that the area of 9000 cubic meters could not have been considered to be reclaimed as a part of the contractual work done under the contract. The said portion was required to be removed by the respondent at its own cost. Since the respondent did not remove the heaved portion, the petitioner was entitled to withheld an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for removal of the said heaved up portion. The finding of the learned arbitrator in the award allowing the said claim is totally perverse and contrary to the contract. He submits that the learned arbitrator has placed reliance on the affidavit of Mr. V.T. Ganpule whose evidence was restricted to the contractual mode of measurement to be made to the respondent. The finding of the learned arbitrator in the award allowing the said claim is totally perverse and contrary to the contract. He submits that the learned arbitrator has placed reliance on the affidavit of Mr. V.T. Ganpule whose evidence was restricted to the contractual mode of measurement to be made to the respondent. He invited my attention to the letter dated 29th March 1997 which was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent in which it was specifically recorded by the petitioner that the heaved up area where filling was not done and it was not permissible to take into consideration. He submits that the heaving was expected and was to be controlled or rectified by the respondent exclusively at its own cost. The impugned award allowing the said claim is contrary to the provisions of the contract. 38. Insofar as the claim for Rs.3,00,000/- which was withheld for royalty is concerned, learned counsel submits that the said claim is discussed in issue nos.17 and 24 of the impugned award. He submits that though there was no pleading in support of the said claim for Rs.3,00,000/- regarding payment of royalty charges, the learned arbitrator had allowed the said claim illegally. He submits that under clause 47 of the General Conditions of Contract, it provided for royalty charges will have to be paid in connection with obtaining the filling material. The respondent did not produce any evidence in support of its claim that the respondent was not liable to pay royalty on filling material. The respondent itself had filed a Writ Petition in this Court. He submits that the learned arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to pay royalty charges to the respondent. 39. Learned counsel submits that since the learned arbitrator has allowed the claims as made in the second amendment which were barred by law of limitation and since it is not possible to severe the good portion of award, if any, from the bad portion of the award, the entire award is liable to be set aside on that ground. He submits that limitation would not relate back to the date of receipt of notice invoking arbitration agreement in this case. The finding of the learned arbitrator that the claims were not barred by law of limitation is contrary to the judgments laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court. 40. He submits that limitation would not relate back to the date of receipt of notice invoking arbitration agreement in this case. The finding of the learned arbitrator that the claims were not barred by law of limitation is contrary to the judgments laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court. 40. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to clauses 43, 44 and 45 of the contract which provides for rates due to additions and alterations, for variation exceeding 20% etc. He submits that the rates provided in the BOQ were inclusive of the loss of material due to sinking etc. Learned counsel submits that though the 7th RA bill was submitted by the respondent which was last bill on 15th April 1997, the respondent did not make any such claim in the said bill. A completion certificate was already issued on 26th February 1997. The respondent, however, made this claim for the first time only on 8th April 1999. The RA bill 5 to 7 was submitted by the respondent only after submission of the completion certificate. 41. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had not issued any variation order as contemplated under clause 43 of the contract. Even if any additional rates are required to be fixed under clause 43, learned arbitrator has decided contrary to the said clause of the contract and accepted the rates as demanded by the respondent without following the mandatory procedure under the said clause. Though the learned arbitrator has recorded the said clause in the award, the learned arbitrator had allowed the amount as claimed by the respondent only after deducting Rs.8,00,000/-. Learned arbitrator has considered the rate of Rs.138/- per cubic meter which was offered by the petitioner to some other contractor, which rate was not applicable to the work in question. Though the petitioner had raised all these objections about non-compliance of mandatory procedure under clauses 43 and 44 of the contract, the learned arbitrator did not consider the submission made by the petitioner in the impugned award and has allowed the prohibited claim. The award is thus in conflict with the public policy. 42. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause 3 of the contract provides for scope of work. Simpson Rule was to be applied for the purpose of measurement. No allowance for extra quantity for sinking could have been considered. The award is thus in conflict with the public policy. 42. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause 3 of the contract provides for scope of work. Simpson Rule was to be applied for the purpose of measurement. No allowance for extra quantity for sinking could have been considered. Clause 8.2 of the said contract provides for mode of measurement. Reliance is also placed on preamble of the contract. He submits that reconciliation carried out by the parties pursuant to the directions given by the learned arbitrator without prejudice to the rights and contentions, was not binding on the petitioner. He submits that even in the first amendment applied by the respondent, the respondent had made a claim at the rate of Rs.90/- per cubic meter. Only in the second amendment, the respondent made a claim at the rate of Rs.138/- per cubic meter that is after closure of the argument. CLAIM NO. 2 43. In so far as claim no.2 i.e. claim for additional quantity of angular rock boulders to construct larger cross section of the rock bund than shown in the tender drawing is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the notice dated 8th April 1999 issued to the Chairman of the petitioner invoking arbitration agreement, the respondent had made this claim for Rs.17,11,000/- comprising of 11800 cubic meters @ Rs.145/- per cubic meter. In its claim filed before the learned arbitrator Shri Bhansali on 9th June 2000, the respondent, however, made a claim of Rs.11,60,046.11 for 8003.18 cubic meters @ Rs.145/- per cubic meter. The said claim was opposed by the petitioner by filing written statement on 27th September 2000. In its amended claim dated 16th April 2003, the respondent made a claim for Rs.28,89,536.14 comprising of 2200.32 cubic meters @ Rs.145/- per cubic meter and 10281.96 cubic meters @Rs.250/- per cubic meter claimed as market price. The petitioner filed an additional written statement opposing the said amended claim of Rs.64,38,716.84/-. 44. On 19th January 2009, the respondent made further amendment to claim no.2 for Rs.72,72,207.30/-. The said amount was claimed comprising of 34800 cubic meters @ Rs.145/- per cubic meter and 11204.90 MT @Rs.545.49 per MT as per DSR rate. The respondent deducted the sum of Rs.38,85,953.60/- which was paid by the petitioner to the respondent out of the claim amount of Rs.1,11,58,160/- and made a claim of Rs.72,72,207.30/-. The said amount was claimed comprising of 34800 cubic meters @ Rs.145/- per cubic meter and 11204.90 MT @Rs.545.49 per MT as per DSR rate. The respondent deducted the sum of Rs.38,85,953.60/- which was paid by the petitioner to the respondent out of the claim amount of Rs.1,11,58,160/- and made a claim of Rs.72,72,207.30/-. The petitioner opposed the said claim by filing additional written statement. Learned arbitrator framed various issues. The learned arbitrator has discussed the said claim under issue nos.18, 25, 39, 36 and 37 and has allowed the said claim. 45. He submits that the original claim no.2 made by the respondent was only for Rs.11,60,046.11/- for providing rock angular boulder of 10 kgs. to 200 kgs. for bund wall as per specific scope of work and drawings. The respondent had claimed 8003.18 cubic meters in respect of claim no.2. The rate originally claimed by the respondent under claim no.2 was at Rs.145/- per cubic meter. In the first amendment, the claim no.2 was calculated on the basis of Rs.145/- per cubic meter as well as Rs.250/- per cubic meter. In the second amendment, the claim no.2 was calculated on the basis of Rs.145/- per cubic meter and Rs.545.49 per cubic meter. 46. Learned counsel submits that the respondent had failed to establish before the learned arbitrator the basis on which it had arrived at the quantity of 10281.96 cubic meters as additional quantity of rock bund over and above the estimated quantity mentioned in the tender. Similarly, there was no evidence produced by the respondent for proving the correctness of the rate of Rs.250/- per cubic meter claimed by the respondent in respect of additional quantity of rock bund of 10281.96 cubic meters. The respondent also did not prove that the respondent had completed the work of 39281 cubic meters in respect of the said claim no.2. 47. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the measurements in the contract were to be taken from initial ground level and not below the ground level. The respondent had made the original claim for the construction of bund wall only on the basis of stones of 10 kgs. to 200 kgs. It was not the case of the respondent in the original claim that they were entitled to payment of 1 to 1.5 ton boulders as an extra item. He submits that the claim nos. The respondent had made the original claim for the construction of bund wall only on the basis of stones of 10 kgs. to 200 kgs. It was not the case of the respondent in the original claim that they were entitled to payment of 1 to 1.5 ton boulders as an extra item. He submits that the claim nos. 2 and 3 were overlapping and were duplicated claims. Learned arbitrator has awarded both the claims which shows perversity and patent illegality on the face of the award. 48. Learned counsel submits that though the respondent had not followed the prescribed procedure under clause 43 of the contract and had failed to produce any material to claim the quantity of the alleged extra work in respect of the claims filed before the learned arbitrator, the learned arbitrator has allowed the claim contrary to the terms of the contract. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had specifically denied and disputed the amended claim no.2, the learned arbitrator has rendered perverse finding that the petitioner had not refuted the amended claim no.2. 49. On the issue of limitation, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the learned arbitrator that the respondent had not changed the quantity is totally perverse and contrary to the amendment application made and allowed by the learned arbitrator. The award discloses patent illegality on the face of the award. 50. Learned counsel submits that before making the claim no.2, the respondent did not follow the procedure provided for claiming any variations. The respondent had not submitted any rate analysis. The claim made by the respondent for bund wall was not based on the tender drawings. Mr. Ganpule who was examined as a witness by the respondent had admitted that as per drawings, the side slope was 1:1. The petitioner had not issued any variation order. In the 5th RA bill, no such claim was made which was submitted on 10th March 1997. The said bill was returned to the petitioner by the respondent with a direction to resubmit the same. On 21st March 1997, the respondent had submitted 6th RA bill. In the said 6th RA bill, the respondent had admitted the rate @ Rs.250/-. He submits that on 29th March 1997, the petitioner had disputed the quantity as per slope 1:1. All the joint measurements recorded 1:1 slope. 51. On 21st March 1997, the respondent had submitted 6th RA bill. In the said 6th RA bill, the respondent had admitted the rate @ Rs.250/-. He submits that on 29th March 1997, the petitioner had disputed the quantity as per slope 1:1. All the joint measurements recorded 1:1 slope. 51. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the District Schedule Rates of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg were not applicable to this contract, learned arbitrator has applied the said schedule rates. Learned arbitrator has acted contrary to the terms of the contract. Learned counsel invited my attention to the Minutes of Meeting held between the parties in which the respondent agreed not to charge any extra amount for heavy boulders and submits that the learned arbitrator has decided contrary to the said agreement arrived at in the Minutes of Meeting which was an admitted document. CLAIM NO.3 52. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned arbitrator totally overlooked the provisions of the contract provided for mode of measurement by Simpsons formula. The respondent themselves had accepted reconciliation quantity made on 9th March, 2001. The petitioner had determined the agreed quantities based on the contractual provisions. As regards reclamation work, the petitioner had not agreed to quantity of Rs.49,849.90 cubic meters. Similarly as regards bund wall, the petitioner had not agreed to the quantity of 12,482.57 cubic meters for the bund wall above ground level and the quantity 57,600 cubic meters in the bund wall below ground level of the sea bed as the quantities were not based on joint measurements and joint records mentioned by the parties. He submits that though the respondent did not produce any evidence to prove the disputed quantities in terms of cubic meters which were originally claimed and altered by the amendments, the learned arbitrator has allowed the entire quantities as claimed by the respondent without evidence. 53. Learned counsel submits that under the terms of the contract, the petitioner was liable to make payment to the respondent in respect of slope of 1:1. The respondent achieved bund slope at 1:2 and not 1:1 as required by the contract. The respondent themselves had accepted and agreed that the bund slope required was 1:1 and not 1:2. 53. Learned counsel submits that under the terms of the contract, the petitioner was liable to make payment to the respondent in respect of slope of 1:1. The respondent achieved bund slope at 1:2 and not 1:1 as required by the contract. The respondent themselves had accepted and agreed that the bund slope required was 1:1 and not 1:2. The respondent themselves in the 5th RA Bill had claimed side slope of 1:1 for bund wall which bill was submitted by the respondent on 10th March, 1997 which was after completion of the work. The award of the learned arbitrator allowing the claim of the respondent based on slope 1:2 is thus contrary to the provisions of the contract and is in conflict with public policy. He submits that the learned arbitrator ignored the provisions of the contract. The General Specifications clauses 6, 7 and 9 did not make any reference whatsoever to materials brought to side by trucks and dumpers. The said provisions stipulates the measurement for the purpose of payment would be from the ground level. The joint survey report was contemplated by clauses 8 and 9 of General Specifications. The 7th RA Bill was submitted on 15th April, 1997. The joint survey record was completed on 10th March, 1997. The said joint survey report was conclusive evidence of the fact that the total reclamation work was 3,63,027.435 cubic meters and for bund wall the quantity was 26.799.682 cubic meters. The learned arbitrator ignored the joint survey record maintained by the parties under the provisions of the contract and awarded exorbitant quantity based on no evidence and contrary to the joint survey record. 54. Learned counsel submits that the respondent had been already paid a sum of Rs.3,65,56,887.16 on the basis of 7 RA Bills submitted by them. The petitioner had already made payment on the basis of levels taken from time to time in accordance with the contract. The learned arbitrator could not have considered the truck loads while allowing the said claims in favour of the respondent. The respondent had never called upon the engineer of the petitioner to make calculations as per truck loads. The learned arbitrator overlooked the register of the trips made by dumpers and trucks. The respondent did not submit a final bill. The 7th RA Bill submitted by the respondent was the last bill submitted by them. The respondent had never called upon the engineer of the petitioner to make calculations as per truck loads. The learned arbitrator overlooked the register of the trips made by dumpers and trucks. The respondent did not submit a final bill. The 7th RA Bill submitted by the respondent was the last bill submitted by them. It was only the final bill which determines the quantum on the basis of the Simpson formula. No reasons are rendered by the learned arbitrator as to how the quantum in respect of the reclamation, bund wall, bund slope of 1:2 was derived from truck loads. Learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator totally overlooked the provisions of the contract which did not stipulate any payment for any material below ground level. 55. Insofar as rates awarded by the learned arbitrator in respect of claim no.3 is concerned, learned counsel submits that the respondent did not produce any evidence in support of their claims for higher rates before the learned arbitrator. DSR rates of Harbour Division were not provided for in the contract and could not have been applied for calculating rates by the respondent or by the learned arbitrator while allowing the said claim. The respondent had not even discussed the basis on which the rates were sought to be proved by the respondent in respect of claim no.3. The rates awarded by the learned arbitrator is not in accordance with the contract but beyond the terms of the contract. 56. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had already paid to the respondent for 26,799.68 cubic meters at the contractual rate of Rs.145 per cubic meter which rate had been accepted by the respondent. He submits that the respondent was not entitled to 20% variation as claimed by them in the second amendment. Learned counsel submits that the quantity of 34,800 cubic meters and quantity in excess of 20% of variation limit was not mentioned by the respondent in the first amendment to the statement of claim. Only in the second amendment, the respondent had claimed the said quantity without producing any material on record in support of the said claim. Though the petitioner had challenged the rate analysis given by the respondent in the amended statement of claim, the learned arbitrator rendered a perverse finding that there was no such challenge by the petitioner. 57. Only in the second amendment, the respondent had claimed the said quantity without producing any material on record in support of the said claim. Though the petitioner had challenged the rate analysis given by the respondent in the amended statement of claim, the learned arbitrator rendered a perverse finding that there was no such challenge by the petitioner. 57. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had visited the site before submission of tender. The rates provided in the contract covered the additional quantity of material, if any, sunk. The respondent had made a claim only after submission of the completion certificate. He submits that there was no provision in the BOQ insofar as the claim no.3 as made by the respondent is concerned. The respondent has connected the claim no.3 with claim no.2 which is contrary to the terms of the contract. Since there was no provision made in the BOQ in respect of the claim made under claim no.3, no measurement was carried out by the parties at all as contemplated under the terms of the contract. The respondent did not submit any rate analysis. The petitioner had not ordered any variation. 58. Learned counsel submits that claim no.3 was specifically prohibited under clause 3 of the general specifications. Learned arbitrator by allowing the prohibited claim has exceeded his jurisdiction. The award thus is contrary to the terms of the contract and is in conflict with the public policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that loss of material, if any, in water was not payable separately under the terms of the contract. 59. He submits that under the Simpson Rule applicable under the contract, it was not possible to measure the quantity drown in water. The entire claim was disputed by the petitioner in toto. Learned counsel placed reliance on clauses 2, 3 and 9 of the General Specifications which provided for prohibition for making any such payment. He submits that the claims were contrary to clauses 43, 44 and 45 of the contract. The rates demanded by the respondent were not in accordance with the said provision. The award is contrary to and overlooking the provision of the contract. Learned arbitrator overlooked the discussions arrived at in the Minutes of Meeting on some frivolous grounds. 60. Mr. He submits that the claims were contrary to clauses 43, 44 and 45 of the contract. The rates demanded by the respondent were not in accordance with the said provision. The award is contrary to and overlooking the provision of the contract. Learned arbitrator overlooked the discussions arrived at in the Minutes of Meeting on some frivolous grounds. 60. Mr. Bhise, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Engineering Co. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., reported in AIR 1992 SC 232 and in particular paragraphs 26 to 31 and would submit that the learned arbitrator could not decide contrary to the terms of the contract and could not act arbitrarily. 61. Per contra, Mr. Bharucha, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the learned arbitrator has rendered various findings of fact which are not perverse and thus no interference is warranted with such findings of fact. In so far as the claim no.1 is concerned, he submits that statement of the reconcile quantity filed by the parties before the learned arbitrator was binding on both the parties. It was not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner would not consider the jointly recorded quantity at all. The learned arbitrator had recorded the finding that the said statement was binding on both the parties. This Court cannot interfere with such finding of fact. 62. Learned senior counsel submits that insofar as the rate of Rs.138/- per cubic meter allowed by the learned arbitrator is concerned, the said rate has been awarded by the learned arbitrator based on the rate claimed by the petitioner itself in the counter claim against the respondent after reducing the amount against the dredging. Learned arbitrator had rightly considered the said rate and cannot be challenged by the petitioner. He submits that under clause 3.3 of the contract, additional dumping material was anticipated. The petitioner had asked the respondent for fast dumping of the material and as a result thereof, the additional quantity was required to be used. The respondent was not responsible for the same. The claim thus made by the respondent for additional quantity or for bigger size of the boulders was justified. He submits that the learned arbitrator had rightly considered the joint quantity arrived at between the parties. The respondent was not responsible for the same. The claim thus made by the respondent for additional quantity or for bigger size of the boulders was justified. He submits that the learned arbitrator had rightly considered the joint quantity arrived at between the parties. The petitioner cannot thus challenge the said finding before the learned arbitrator. 63. Insofar as the claim no.2 is concerned, the learned senior counsel invited my attention to page 304 of the contract which provides for work sketch showing slope as 1:1. He submits that the sketch drawn in the contract was not drawn seriously. The rock bund was not designed on sound principle of Engineering. The learned arbitrator, after considering the oral evidence of Mr. Ganpule who was an expert, has rightly allowed the claim and has rendered a finding that the slope 1:1 was not possible. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence considered by the learned arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. He submits that there was no dispute about the actual quantity. The petitioner wanted to pay for 1:1 slope. The respondent had demanded the additional quantity in view of 1:2 slope. The finding rendered by the learned arbitrator was based on pure question of fact. The learned arbitrator has already rejected the claim for extra lead and escalation. This Court cannot interfere with such finding of fact rendered by the learned arbitrator. 64. Insofar as the claim no.3 is concerned, learned senior counsel submits that though the respondent had used big boulders for the work carried out under claim no.2, the respondent had claimed for the quantity provided in the BOQ rate plus 20% excess at the rate provided in the BOQ. He submits that insofar as the claim no.3 is concerned, the respondent had used the big size boulders for under ground works. The Minutes of meeting relied upon by the petitioner were not applicable since the same could not be considered as a binding contract between the parties. The interpretation of the contract rendered by the learned arbitrator is a possible interpretation and cannot be interfered with by this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 65. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner had only denied the quantity on the ground that the quantity claimed by the respondent was for the work below the ground level. The interpretation of the contract rendered by the learned arbitrator is a possible interpretation and cannot be interfered with by this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 65. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner had only denied the quantity on the ground that the quantity claimed by the respondent was for the work below the ground level. The petitioner had not disputed the measurement of quantity as claimed by the respondent. Learned arbitrator has rightly rendered a finding to that effect which cannot be interfered with. Learned arbitrator has also considered the progress report in the impugned award which was jointly signed by both the parties. 66. Insofar as the rates applied by the learned arbitrator is concerned, learned senior counsel submits that the District Schedule Rate relied upon by the respondent and followed by the learned arbitrator was also the government approved rate. Learned arbitrator had applied the District Schedule Rates of Ratnagiri, Harbour Division. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence considered by the learned arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 67. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned arbitrator could not have allowed the amendment to the statement of claim in the manner permitted by the learned arbitrator is concerned, he invited my attention to the statement of claim and also to the amendment application and would submit that the respondent had reserved the right to amend its claim. Once such liberty was reserved by the respondent, the learned arbitrator was justified in allowing the application for amendment. He submits that such amendment even otherwise was permissible under Section 23 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner thus cannot challenge such amendment which was rightly allowed by the learned arbitrator.