JUDGMENT : G.S. KULKARNI, J. 1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') arises from the order dated 6 May 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the Appellant's/Claimant's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act challenging the award of the Arbitral Tribunal, has been dismissed. 2. The Appellant is the original claimant and the Respondent is the original Respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal. The dispute between the parties arose in respect of a contract awarded to the Appellant by the Respondent for which tenders were invited namely the contract of “Current Wind and Wave Observations at 6 locations on the East Coast in India namely KGKD 8, KGKD 9, KGKD 10, KGKD 11, GDSW and GDNW.” The Appellant's offer was accepted by what is termed as a notice of Award dated 29 October 2003 for the said work of “Current, Wind and Wave Observation.” On 23 December 2013 the parties signed a formal contract. There is no dispute that the contract which was awarded was a lump sum/fixed price contract. The agreement in clause 1.1.1 recites that it shall be deemed to have come into effect on the date of notice of award i.e. 29 October 2003. 3. The Appellant has relied on certain events which have taken place prior to the execution of the formal contract namely meeting held on 12 December 2003 between the Appellant and Mr. Bhatnagar, the representative of the Respondent. This meeting was called as “Basin Group Meeting”. The case of the Appellant was that a detailed schedule of the work was prepared in Basin Group Meeting keeping in mind the actual dates on which drilling operations were to commence at each of the locations where wind, wave and current operations were to be carried out, as observations were required to be undertaken prior to commencement of the drilling work. 4. Also a further event dated 16 December 2003 is relied upon to state that a team of officers of Indian Navy inspected the vessel to be used by the Appellant for the work contracted at Vishakapatnam. The Appellant states that the naval team did not give clearance to the vessel immediately but stated that such clearance would have to be obtained from naval headquarter, Ministry of Defence, Delhi. The Appellant states that the naval team did not give clearance to the vessel immediately but stated that such clearance would have to be obtained from naval headquarter, Ministry of Defence, Delhi. The Appellant's case is that on 9 January 2004 the naval team once again inspected the Appellant's vessel and granted partial clearance for wind and wave observation work and for current observation work upto a maximum observation period of 48 hours. On 10 January 2004 the naval team also cleared the deployment of wave buoys. On 11 January 2004 the vessel hired by the Appellant set sailed for carrying out wind and wave observation work at the KGKD 8 and KGKD 9 locations. Thereafter on 9 February 2004 again the Naval authorities granted clearance for carrying out current observation work for 30 days period as per the terms of the agreement between the parties. Accordingly, on 10 February 2004 the vessel hired by the claimant set out to sail at KGKD 10 location for deploying equipment for “current” observation work at that location. On 11 February 2004 by a fax letter of the Respondent, the Appellant was informed that drilling operations at KGKD 10 were to commence by 19 February 2004 and therefore, the Appellant was asked to discontinue the “current” observations work latest by 18 February 2004. The Appellant thereafter deployed the observations equipment and moorings at the other locations. The contract was accordingly performed by the Appellant during the stipulated period. The Appellant raised invoices dated 1st/3rd June 2004 and 22nd June, 2004 which were duly paid by the Respondent. 5. The Appellant thereafter raised a dispute claiming certain additional charges and balance amount due and payable to the Appellant by the Respondent. These claims were rejected by the Respondent and the dispute in regard to these claims was thereafter referred for arbitration before a three member Arbitral Tribunal. The Appellant raised four claims. Admittedly the only issue as urged and considered by the learned Single Judge was in respect of claim no.(iv) as raised before the learned Arbitrator. These claims were rejected by the Respondent and the dispute in regard to these claims was thereafter referred for arbitration before a three member Arbitral Tribunal. The Appellant raised four claims. Admittedly the only issue as urged and considered by the learned Single Judge was in respect of claim no.(iv) as raised before the learned Arbitrator. Claim No.(iv) was as under:- “(iv) Claim for balance amount of invoices raised for current observation work on KGKD10 for Rs.47,21,772.25/- (admittedly, as against the aggregate amount claimed of Rs.58,25,642/- the Respondent has paid an amount of Rs.12,36,950/- as full and final payment for the 8 days of current observation work that was carried out by the Claimant).” 6. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, the parties filed their detailed pleadings as also documents. The parties led oral evidence and the witnesses were also cross examined. The Arbitral Tribunal taking into consideration the relevant clauses under the agreement and more particularly clause 4.1.1 (Annexure II of the contract) held that the obligation of taking clearance from the Naval authorities and other Governmental authorities, for the project work was cast upon the Appellant as the contractor. After considering the evidence which had come on record the Arbitral Tribunal rejected the contention as raised on behalf of the Appellant that the delay in obtaining the clearance was on account of any breach of the obligation of the Respondent. However considering the stand of the Respondent reasonable, the Tribunal in rejecting the Claim No.(iv) (supra) has observed as under:- “49. The Respondent is, therefore, justified in its stand that the contract having been breached by the Claimant, the Claimant is not entitled to any part of the lump sum consideration agreed for the 30 days current observation work at KGKD10. Nonetheless, the Respondent has taken a reasonable stand and paid prorata a sum of Rs.12,36,950/- for 8 days of the said work done. Although the Claimant accepted it in full and final settlement when the payment was made, the Claimant has subsequently raised a dispute for the balance amount of Rs.34,84,822/-. Nonetheless, the Respondent has taken a reasonable stand and paid prorata a sum of Rs.12,36,950/- for 8 days of the said work done. Although the Claimant accepted it in full and final settlement when the payment was made, the Claimant has subsequently raised a dispute for the balance amount of Rs.34,84,822/-. In the view of the Tribunal, the claim for the balance amount is also not justified.” The Arbitral Tribunal thus made the following Award in respect of claim no.(iv):- “(iv) Claim for balance amount of invoices raised for current observation work on KGKD10 for Rs.47,21,772.25/- (admittedly, as against the aggregate amount claimed of Rs.58,25,642/- the Respondent has paid an amount of Rs.12,36,950/- as full and final payment for the 8 days of current observation work that was carried out by the Claimant) stands rejected.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. In rejecting the Section 34 petition as filed by the Appellant, the learned Single Judge agreed in totality to the above findings as recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal and held that the delay was fully attributable to the Appellant and therefore claim No.(iv) was not justifiable. 8. The Appellant in assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge submits that there was an error on the part of the Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge in interpreting clause 4.1.1 of the contract. It is submitted that in fact clause 4.1.1 would pertain to preparation of vessel for the purpose of contract work to be undertaken. It is submitted that the finding as recorded by the Tribunal, that there was some delay on the part of the Appellant to secure clearance from the Naval authorities is not correct, inasmuch as the Appellant had discharged its obligation and hence, the delay could not have been made attributable to the Appellant. It is submitted that both the Arbitral Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have misconstrued the clauses of the contract and particularly clause 4.4.1. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. 9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent in supporting the finding as recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge would submit that the Tribunal has appropriately taken into consideration the consequences which would flow from the relevant clauses of the contract. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed. 9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent in supporting the finding as recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge would submit that the Tribunal has appropriately taken into consideration the consequences which would flow from the relevant clauses of the contract. It is submitted that the forums below after taking into consideration the documents and the evidence as placed on record, have come to a conclusion that the Appellant could not have raised Claim no.(iv) (supra), after receipt of full and final payment. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the obligation was clearly on the Appellant under the relevant clauses of the contract to obtain those clearances in time. Any expenditure incurred in relation to the same and / or consequences falling thereunder could not have been the liability on the Respondent under the contract which was a fixed contract. The learned Senior Counsel has taken us through the relevant observations as made in the Award as also the clauses in the contract in support of his submissions. 10. After having perused the findings as recorded by the Tribunal in regard to claim No.(iv) as also having gone through the relevant clauses of the contract, more particularly clause 4.1.1 as also the findings which are recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are surely not persuaded by the submissions as made on behalf of the Appellant. The contract in question was admittedly a fixed price contract or a lump sum contract and thus, it was not subject to any kind of variation. It was, therefore, quite natural for the Appellant in agreeing to fixed price contract to take into consideration all consequential heads of expenditure on all account when the Appellant agreed to enter into a fixed price contract. A perusal of the contract also does not support the case of the Appellant that the Appellant can sustain any independent / separate claim under any of the heads. As regards Claim no.(iv), the Appellant has admittedly raised an invoice after the full and final payment was made by the Respondent of an amount of Rs.12,36,950/-. A perusal of the contract also does not support the case of the Appellant that the Appellant can sustain any independent / separate claim under any of the heads. As regards Claim no.(iv), the Appellant has admittedly raised an invoice after the full and final payment was made by the Respondent of an amount of Rs.12,36,950/-. The Arbitral Tribunal has observed that in fact the Appellant had accepted the recovery of liquidated damages by the Respondent from the Appellant in view of failure on the part of Appellant in obtaining necessary clearances resulting in delay in mobilization. The Arbitral Tribunal also held in this regard that the Appellant never took a position that the delay was not attributable to it but to the Respondent or by any breach on the part of the Respondent. It is thus quite clear that the Appellant in raising claim No. (iv) (supra) has taken a reverse position. 11. The submission on behalf of the Appellant as regards interpretation of clause 4.1.1 also, in our opinion, is untenable. What would be relevant, is to note sub-clause (iv) under clause 4.1.1 which reads thus:- “4.1.1 It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to fully comply with the following Security Provisions:- (iv) The schedules prescribed in the foregoing paras for advance submissions of details regarding vessel/personnel clearance is (are) indicative only as the clearances are to be accorded by the concerned departments of the Govt. of India. Hence, company will not be liable for any time and cost impact due to any delays on this account or due to change of procedures etc. in this regard.” In not accepting the contention as urged on behalf of the Appellant, the Tribunal as also the learned Single judge has, in our opinion, appropriately interpreted the contract. The delay in seeking appropriate approvals was clearly a matter with which only the Appellant was concerned and that there is no evidence to show that there is any breach whatsoever or an obligation in that regard on the part of the Respondent in obtaining of the clearances from the Naval Authorities. The interpretation of the clause as undertaken by the Tribunal and accepted by the learned Single Judge is a possible interpretation completely in consonance to the contract clauses and within the framework of the contract. The interpretation of the clause as undertaken by the Tribunal and accepted by the learned Single Judge is a possible interpretation completely in consonance to the contract clauses and within the framework of the contract. Further the Arbitral Tribunal has held that there was no dispute between the parties that after obtaining clearances the observation work as regards KGKD 10 commenced from 10 February 2004. As by letter dated 11 February 2004 the Respondent requested to stop the work at KGKD 10 by 19 February 2004. A finding of fact has been recorded that there was no dispute that work of “current” observation site location was carried out by the Appellant only for eight days for which the Appellant came to be compensated by making payment of Rs.12,36,950/- and thus, no amount was due and payable to the Appellant as claimed under Claim no.(iv). Also the contentions as urged on behalf of the Appellant would amount to re-appreciation of evidence and coming to a different conclusion which could not have been the scope, of the proceedings, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 12. In view of the above deliberation, we are of the clear opinion that the present appeal does not call for any interference. The findings which are recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal as confirmed by the learned Single Judge are within the framework of the contract and the law. 13. As a result, we see no merit in the Appeal. It is accordingly, rejected. No order as to costs.