JUDGMENT : 1. Instant 'Original Petition' ('OP' for brevity) is directed against an 'arbitral award dated 09.05.2009' (hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of convenience and clarity) made by an 'Arbitral Tribunal' ('AT' for brevity). 2. When this OP was presented, three members, who constituted the AT, i.e., one Presiding Arbitrator and two Arbitrators were arrayed as respondent Nos.2, 3, and 4, but subsequently they were deleted vide order dated 29.06.2016 made by this Court. Therefore, there is 'only one respondent', i.e., 'sole respondent' now in the instant OP (hereinafter 'contractor' for brevity). With regard to 'two petitioners', they shall be collectively referred to as 'Southern Railways' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. Fulcrum and nucleus of this lis is an 'agreement dated 14.03.2005' between Southern Railways and Contractor and the same shall be referred to as 'said Contract' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 4. Work which is subject matter of said contract is as follows : "Provision of signalling arrangements (Relay interlocking – Route setting type) in connection with replacement of signalling gears at Tuticorin, Milavittan & Tattaparai stations and Level Crossings No.476 & 473 over Madurai Division – Appointment of Arbitration Tribunal – Request." Aforesaid work, which is subject matter of 'said contract' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said work' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 5. It is not in dispute that said work under said contract had to be completed within six months from the date of 'Letter of Acceptance' ('LOA' for brevity). It is also not in dispute that the LOA is dated 24.12.2004 and therefore, said six months time frame elapsed on 23.06.2005. Be that as it may, it is also not in dispute that the value of the said contract is Rs.1,09,56,069/- (Rupees One Crore Nine Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand and Sixty Nine only). In other words, the value of said contract is little over Rs.1.09 Crores. 6. It is not in dispute that said work under said contract was commenced by the contractor. As mentioned supra, it is also not in dispute that when the aforesaid six months period from the date of LOA elapsed on 23.06.2005, out of the total value little over of Rs.1.09 Crores, work to the extent of Rs.41,74,498/- (little over Rs.41.74 lakhs) had been completed. 7. Therefore, thereafter, there were 7 time extensions. As mentioned supra, it is also not in dispute that when the aforesaid six months period from the date of LOA elapsed on 23.06.2005, out of the total value little over of Rs.1.09 Crores, work to the extent of Rs.41,74,498/- (little over Rs.41.74 lakhs) had been completed. 7. Therefore, thereafter, there were 7 time extensions. First of the extensions commenced on 24.06.2005 and the last extension being 7th extension concluded on 30.04.2008. It is also submitted that with regard to 7 extensions, while 6 extensions were made under Clause 17-A(ii) of General Conditions of Contract (GCC), one extension granted on 30.11.2006 was under Clause 17-B of GCC. To be noted, the essential difference between Clauses 17(A) and 17(B) of GCC is that extension under Clause 17-A is without 'Liquidated Damages' ('LD' for brevity) and extension under Clause 17-B is with LD. For the purpose of further clarity, it is to be mentioned that this Court is informed that an extension under Clause 17(B) with LD would mean that when any extension is granted under this clause 17(B), the LD will be deducted from the bills payable. In other words, this court is informed that this is the procedure that was operated qua said contract. 8. Be that as it may, with regard to 30.11.2006 extension under 17(B) of GCC, this court is informed by both sides that a separate rider agreement dated 12.11.2007 was executed between Southern Railways and Contractor. 9. Before this Court proceeds further with discussion in the instant OP, it is to be noted that said contract, is to be read along with GCC and another document, which is captioned 'Special Conditions of Contract'. In other words, it is the specific submission made on both sides before this Court that the said Contract (which governs the entire said work between the parties) was constituted by aforesaid agreement dated 14.03.2005, GCC and special conditions of Contract. Therefore, reference to said Contract would necessarily mean a reference to agreement dated 14.03.2005, GCC and special conditions of Contract collectively. 10. Inter-alia owing to abovesaid extensions, certain disputes primarily regarding payments arose between Southern Railways and contractor. 11. In the aforesaid backdrop, Contractor issued a notice dated 21.01.2008 to Southern Railways, invoking arbitration clause in the said contract. Therefore, reference to said Contract would necessarily mean a reference to agreement dated 14.03.2005, GCC and special conditions of Contract collectively. 10. Inter-alia owing to abovesaid extensions, certain disputes primarily regarding payments arose between Southern Railways and contractor. 11. In the aforesaid backdrop, Contractor issued a notice dated 21.01.2008 to Southern Railways, invoking arbitration clause in the said contract. It is also not in dispute that this notice qualifies as a communication within the meaning of Section 21 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('A & C Act' for brevity). In this notice, Contractor made as many as 8 claims. These 8 claims as can be culled out from the said notice are as follows : Claim No.1 Final Bill (Work in progress – exclusive of any on account bill payable during execution of the work) Rs.7,00,000 Claim No.2 Refund of Security deposit By way of Bank Guarantee to be discharges – Rs.3,00,000 Balance amount recovered Through on account bill To be refunded- Rs.2,55,303 Rs.5,55,303 Claim No.3 Compensation for prolongation Work was stopped by the administration by not handing over the building at Tuticorin and Milavittan and also not Laying points & Crossings for signal connection/interlocking work. Thereby Claimant was waiting from the period 01.10.2006 to this date of petition – 15 months – Entire establishment, Machineries were kept idle – leading to Financial loss. Claimant claimed in Approximate. Details will be submitted before the Tribunal Rs.25,00,000 Claim No.4 Breach of Contract It is proved by Admission by Railway that buildings were not ready at Tuticorin and Milavittan. Extension of time granted. As prolongation involved additional expenditure not only overheads, but also leading to liquidity of financial position, because of non-availability of finance from Railway for this agreement work. Compensation due to cause of breach of contract on Rs.40,00,000/- @ 20% Rs.8,00,000/- Claim No.5 Refund of alleged recovery towards Liquidated Damages Rs.5,69,122 Claim No.6 Enhanced rate for the works executed beyond the original currency, viz. 24.06.2006. Compensation due to cause of breach of contract on Rs.40,00,000/- @ 20% Rs.8,00,000/- Claim No.5 Refund of alleged recovery towards Liquidated Damages Rs.5,69,122 Claim No.6 Enhanced rate for the works executed beyond the original currency, viz. 24.06.2006. Value of work executed as per CC IX & part - Rs.69,64,584 Less value of work executed as per CC IV and part July, 05 Rs.46,31,979 Value of work executed beyond the Original currency Rs.23,33,605 Claim @ 40% over and above the Agt.Rate – 2333605 x 40% Rs.9,33,442 Claim No.6 Interest @ 18% for the period from 01.10.2006 to 31.12.2007 and further interest from 01.01.2008 to the date of discharge on Rs.4000000/- To be quantified Claim No.7 Legal Charges Rs.1,00,000 12. To be noted, the aforesaid claims have been culled out from notice within the meaning of Section 21 of A & C Act, as placed before this Court as part of the case file. It is submitted that there is a typographical error in the above table that has been extracted and reproduced, owing to which, second claim No.6 should read as claim No.7. Resultantly, claim No.7 should read as claim No.8 and therefore, factually there are 8 claims. 13. In response to this, Southern Railways, vide Letter No.G.16/DGM/ARB/2008/20 dated 10.04.2008, held that only 4 out of 8 claims can be referred to the Arbitrator, which is referred to as 'Terms of Reference'. Out of 8 claims, which have been extracted and reproduced supra, 4 claims namely claim Nos.3, 4, 5 and 8 alone were held to be capable of being referred to arbitration. The Terms of Reference as can be culled out from the reply dated 10.04.2008 from Southern Railways is as follows: "TERMS OF REFERENCE CONTRACTOR'S CLAIMS Sl. No. Description of Claim Claim Amount Rs. 1. Compensation for prolongation 25,00,000/- 2. Breach of Contract 8,00,000/- 3. Refund of alleged recovery towards liquidated damages 5,69,122/- 4. Legal Charges 1,00,000/- TOTAL 39,69,122/- (Rs.Thirty nine lakhs sixty nine thousand one hundred and twenty two only)" 14. The above is relatable/traceable to clauses 63 and 64 of GCC (forming part of said contract) and the same are as follows: "63. Compensation for prolongation 25,00,000/- 2. Breach of Contract 8,00,000/- 3. Refund of alleged recovery towards liquidated damages 5,69,122/- 4. Legal Charges 1,00,000/- TOTAL 39,69,122/- (Rs.Thirty nine lakhs sixty nine thousand one hundred and twenty two only)" 14. The above is relatable/traceable to clauses 63 and 64 of GCC (forming part of said contract) and the same are as follows: "63. Matters finally determined by the Railway:- All disputes and differences of any kind whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the contract, whether during the progress of the work or after their completion and whether before or after the determination of the contract, shall be referred by the Contractor to the Railway and the Railway shall within 120 days after receipt of the Contractor's representation make and notify decisions on all matters referred to by the Contractor in writing provided that matters for which provision has been made in clauses 8(a), 18, 22(5), 39, 43(2), 45(a), 55, 55-A(5), 57, 57-A, 61(1), 61(2) and 62(1)(B) of the General Conditions of Contract or in any clause of the special conditions of the contract shall be deemed as "excepted matters" and decisions of the Railway authority, thereon shall be final and binding on the Contractor; provided further that "excepted matters" shall stand specifically excluded from the purview of the arbitration clause and shall not be referred to arbitration. 64(1)(i). Demand for Arbitration:- In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto as to the construction or operation of this contract, or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question, dispute or difference on any account, or as to the withholding by the Railway of any certificate to which the Contractor may claim to be entitled to, or if the Railway fails to make a decision within 120 days, then and in any such case, but except in any of the 'excepted matters' referred to in clause 63 of these conditions, the Contractor, after 120 days but within 180 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matters, shall demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration. 64(1)(ii). The demand for arbitration shall specify the matters which are in question or subject of the dispute or difference as also the amount of claim item-wise. 64(1)(ii). The demand for arbitration shall specify the matters which are in question or subject of the dispute or difference as also the amount of claim item-wise. Only such disputes or differences in respect of which the demand has been made, together with counter claims or set off shall be referred to arbitration and other matters shall not be included in the reference. 64(1)(ii). (a) The Arbitration proceedings shall be assumed to have commenced from the day, a written and valid demand for arbitration is received by the Railway. (b). The claimant shall submit his claim stating the facts supporting the claims alongwith all relevant documents and the relief remedy sought against each claim within a period of 30 days from the date of appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal. (c) The Railway shall submit its defence statement and counter claims, if any, within a period of 60 days of receipt of copy of claims from Tribunal thereafter; unless otherwise extension has been granted by the Tribunal. 64(1)(iii). No new claim shall be added during proceedings by either party. However, a party may amend or supplement the original claim or defence thereof during the course of arbitration proceedings subject to acceptance by the Tribunal having due regard to the delay in making it. 64(1)(iv). If the Contractors does/do not prefer his/their specific and final claims in writing, within a period of 90 days of receiving the intimation from the Railway that the final bill is ready for payment, he/they will be deemed to have waived his/their claims and the Railway shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims. 64(3)(a(v). While appointing arbitrators under sub-clause(i), (ii) and (iii) above, due care shall be taken that he/they is/are not the one/those who had an opportunity to deal with the matters to which the contract relates or who in the course of his/their duties as Railway servants expressed views on all or any of the matters under dispute or differences. The proceedings of the Arbitral Tribunal or the award made by such Tribunal will, however, not be invalid merely for the reason that one or more arbitrator had, in the course of his service, opportunity to deal with the matters to which the contract relates or who in the course of his/their duties, expressed views on all or any of the matters under dispute. 64(3)(b)(i). 64(3)(b)(i). The arbitral award shall state item wise, the sum and reasons upon which it is based. 64(3)(b)(ii). A party may apply for corrections of any computational errors, any typographical or clerical errors or any other error of similar nature occurring in the award and interpretation of a specific point of award to Tribunal within 30 days of receipt of the award. 64(3)(b)(iii). A party may apply to Tribunal within 30 days of receipt of award to make an additional award as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the arbitral award. 64.4. In case of the Tribunal, comprising of three members, any ruling or award shall be made by a majority of members of the Tribunal. In the absence of such a majority, the views of the Presiding Arbitrator shall prevail. 64.5. Where the arbitral award is for the payment of money, no interest shall be payable on whole or any part of the money for any period till the date on which the award is made. 64.6. The cost of arbitration shall be borne by the respective parties. The cost shall inter-alia include fee of the arbitrators as per the rates fixed by the Railway Administration from time to time. 64.7. Subject to the provisions of the aforesaid, Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the rules there under and any statutory modification thereof shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause." 15. As mentioned supra, the special conditions of the contract is also one of the constituents of said contract and with regard to the special conditions of contract also, there is a clear reference to Settlement of Dispute and Arbitration vide Clause 39. In the light of the controversy and in the light of grounds on which instant OP is predicated, this Court considers it appropriate to extract Clause 39 of the special conditions of contract and the same reads as follows: "39. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE AND ARBITRATION: Arbitration in this tender will be governed by the Arbitration and Reconciliation Ordinance 1996, laid down in Para 63 & 64 of General Conditions of Contract. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE AND ARBITRATION: Arbitration in this tender will be governed by the Arbitration and Reconciliation Ordinance 1996, laid down in Para 63 & 64 of General Conditions of Contract. 39.1 MATTERS FINALLY DETERMINED BY THE RAILWAY: All disputes or differences of any kind whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the contract, whether during the progress of the works or after its completion and whether before or after the determination of the contract, shall be referred by the contractor to the Railway and the Railway shall within 120 days after receipt of the contractor's representation make and notify decisions on all matters referred to by the contractor, in writing provided that matters for which provision has been made in clauses 8(a), 18, 22(5), 39, 43(2), 45(a), 55, 55-A(5), 57, 57A, 61(1), 61(2) and 62(1)(b) of the General Conditions of the Contract or in any clause of the Special Conditions of Contract shall be deemed as "excepted matters" and decisions of the Railway authority thereon shall be final and binding on the contractor provided further that 'excepted matters' shall stand specifically excluded from the purview of the arbitration clause and not be referred to arbitration. 39.2 DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION: (i) In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto as to the construction or operation of this contract, or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question, dispute or difference on any account or as to the withholding by the Railway of any certificate to which the contractor may claim to be entitled to, or if the Railway fails to make a decision within 120 days, then and in any such case, but except in any of the "excepted matters" referred to in clause 63 of these conditions, the contractor, after 120 days but within 180 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matters, shall demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration. (ii) The demand for arbitration shall specify the matters which are in question or subject of the dispute or difference as also the amount of claim item-wise. Only such disputes or differences in respect of which the demand has been made together with counter claims or set off shall be referred to arbitration and other matters shall not be included in the reference." 16. Only such disputes or differences in respect of which the demand has been made together with counter claims or set off shall be referred to arbitration and other matters shall not be included in the reference." 16. To be noted, with regard to Clause no.39.2 only relevant sub-clauses have been extracted. 17. In the aforesaid reply dated 10.04.2008 (Terms of reference), Southern Railways, had constituted 3 member AT. 18. Three member AT entered upon reference and before three member AT, Contractor was the claimant and Southern Railways was the respondent. Before the 3 member AT, notwithstanding the aforesaid Terms of Reference, the contractor made all the eight claims, which were originally sought for. 19. To be noted, after the exchange of the aforesaid two communications, namely communication dated 21.01.2008 from the contractor being communication within the meaning of Section 21 of A & C Act and reply from Southern Railways, dated 10.04.2008, some correspondence was exchanged between Southern Railways and the Contractor, but it may not be necessary to refer to the same as it would suffice to state that the Contractor sought all 8 claims to be adjudicated by AT and Southern Railways exercising contractual rights under Clauses 63 and 64 of GCC, i.e., Terms of Reference held that only 4 out of 8 claims are arbitrable disputes, notwithstanding the exchange of correspondence. Ultimately, the contractor made 8 claims before AT. 20. For the purpose of convenience and clarity, the summary of claim of claimant and amount awarded by AT (obviously post adjudication) as can be culled out in the impugned award is set out infra and the same reads as follows: "SUMMARY OF CLAIM OF CLAIMANT AND AMOUNT AWARDED Sl. No. Description of claim Claimed Rs. Award Rs. Interest Rs. Total Amount in Rs. 1 Final Bill 7,00,000 8,45,297 (inclusive of std. Deduction) 1,06,438 9,51,735 (Inclusive of std. Deduction) 2 Refund of Security Deposit 6,00,000 2,55,303 Nil 2,55,303 3 Compensation for prolongation 25,00,000 Nil Nil Nil 4 Breach of Contract 8,00,000 Nil Nil Nil 5 Refund of alleged recovery towards Liquidated damages 5,69,162 5,69,122 1,66,901 7,36,023 6 Enhanced Rates 11,16,034 Nil Nil Nil 7 Interest 7,93,935+ amount to be quantified by the Tribunal Nil Nil Nil 8 Legal Charges 1,00,000 Nil Nil Nil 71,79,131+ amount to be quantified 16,69,722 2,73,338 19,43,061 21. On a perusal of the aforesaid summary, which is in the form of tabular column reveals that 8 claims have been adjudicated upon by AT. Out of 8 claims, while 5 claims have been negatived, 3 claims have been allowed in its entirety. Out of 3 claims which have been allowed, claim No.5 i.e., refund of alleged recovery towards LD has been awarded in full. Otherwise, 2 other heads of claims, i.e., Settlement of Final Bill (claim No.1) and refund of security deposit (claim No.2) do not form part of terms of reference. This is the crux and gravamen of the dispute between the parties in the instant OP. 22. In the aforesaid backdrop, Southern Railways filed the instant OP in this Court. The instant OP was presented in this Court almost a decade ago, to be precise, it was presented on 05.08.2009. In the considered view of this Court, in the light of sub section (6) of section 34 of A & C Act as amended on and with effect from 23.10.2015 and the recent judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti reported in (2018) 9 SCC 472 , instant OP is not just vintage, it may well be described as ancient. To be noted, Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti case law is an authority for the proposition that notice under sub-section (5) of section 34 of A & C Act is only directory and not mandatory. However, in this judgment, Hon'ble Supreme court, in paragraph 26 stressed that courts hearing applications under section 34 of A & C Act shall make every endeavour to adhere to the time frame prescribed under sub-section (6) of section 34. Paragraph No.26 of Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti reads as follows: “26. We are of the opinion that the view propounded by the High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta represents the correct state of the law. However, we may add that it shall be the endeavour of every court in which a Section 34 application is filed, to stick to the time-limit of one year from the date of service of notice to the opposite party by the applicant, or by the Court, as the case may be. However, we may add that it shall be the endeavour of every court in which a Section 34 application is filed, to stick to the time-limit of one year from the date of service of notice to the opposite party by the applicant, or by the Court, as the case may be. In case the Court issues notice after the period mentioned in Section 34(3) has elapsed, every court shall endeavour to dispose of the Section 34 application within a period of one year from the date of filing of the said application, similar to what has been provided in Section 14 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015.........” (Underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight) 23. Be that as it may, in the instant OP, Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned Standing Counsel on record representing Southern Railways and Ms.M.G.Rajeswari, learned counsel on behalf of the Contractor are before this Court. Both learned counsel advanced arguments and instant OP was heard out. 24. Learned counsel for Southern Railways, submitted that the terms of reference, had permitted only 4 out of 8 claims to be arbitrable, whereas the contractor has made all the 8 claims before AT. It was argued that AT ought not to have adjudicated upon the 4 claims which were non-arbitrable. In support of his contention, learned counsel referred to the arbitration agreement between Southern Railways and Contractor particularly Clauses 63 and 64 of GCC (which have been extracted and reproduced supra). Learned counsel submitted that certain aspects of said contract, which form part of the Special Conditions of Contract are not arbitrable and therefore, they had not been part of the terms of reference. It was urged that reference has not been made to AT and therefore, AT being a private Tribunal, i.e., creature of a contract ought not to have adjudicated upon the same. Besides this, with regard to the refund of recovery towards LD, it was submitted on merits that findings returned by AT are erroneous, as AT has referred to delay and latches on the part of Southern Railways with regard to an earlier period and therefore, the findings of AT with regard to reference and LD and refund of the same is erroneous. To be noted, this head is claim No.5, which forms part of terms of reference. 25. To be noted, this head is claim No.5, which forms part of terms of reference. 25. Considering the nature of aforesaid submission, it is appropriate to extract the finding of AT with regard to claim No.5 and the same reads as follows: "Claim No.5 Refund of Alleged recovery towards liquidated damages Rs.5,69,162/- The claimant requested to the tribunal about under what circumstances Liquidated damages have to be leviable. Due notice has not been served by pointing out the default of the contractor, compensation or other levied on the value of the work yet to be carried out claimant has not been allowed to reasonable opportunity either to object or otherwise. The respondent had argued that there is no clause 17 in G.C.C. However clause 17(B) of G.C.C. very clearly specifies that Railway may grant extension with liquidated damages. With reference to this clause only LD was decided and signing of Rider agreement proves that claimant also agreed at that point of time and now only crying foul to get undue benefit. As these liquidate damages are agreed damages (agreed by both the parties) there is no question of giving opportunity to object remains. Hence claim for refund of agreed liquidated damages. The tribunal members have carefully perused the arguments put forth by both the claimant and the Respondent. The working sheet for the arrival of L.D has been received duly vetted by their Associate finance and sanctioned by CSTE/P&P/MAS. The Respondent had calculated the LD as 10% of the first Rs.2 lakhs and 5% of the balance as the contract value is above 2 lakhs. Claimant has completed the works at Tattaparai station and 2 level crossing gates and given for traffic usage on 17.06.05. For which Respondent made inspection only after 4 months i.e On 04th October 2005 & made remarks/observation. Right from 17.06.05 onwards the claimant pointed out the non-readiness of Tuticorin and Milavittan stations and the availability of material duly inspected at site. The pollution control board's letter dated 19.01.2005 was made available to the claimant on 02.09.2005 towards the guidance in installing Diesel Generator set i.e. after taking eight months. Due to alteration against Sl.No.101 and then altered as new item on 02.09.2005 and at many times in piecemeal manner. The second respondent had guided and pointed out their exact requirement and arranged for consignee inspection. Due to alteration against Sl.No.101 and then altered as new item on 02.09.2005 and at many times in piecemeal manner. The second respondent had guided and pointed out their exact requirement and arranged for consignee inspection. Hence the tribunal felt Liquidated damage levied is not in order. DEN/S/MADURAI had informed vide their letter No: U/W/DEN/S/general about their readiness of relay room, power room, generator room at MVN, TN on August 06 and 14.03.06. Hence on the Respondent side some delays had been made for which LD leviable is not in order. Hence therefore Tribunal directed to arrange for refund of LD in full. Award Amount awarded Rs.5,69,122/-" 26. With regard to claim No.2, namely, refund of security deposit, learned counsel for Contractor referred to Clause 51 of GCC and submitted that security deposit forms part of GCC and therefore, it may not be gainsaid/contended that it forms part of the special conditions of contract and is therefore exempt. 27. Responding to this, learned counsel for Southern Railways referred to 10.04.2008 communication from Southern Railways which has been referred to supra and submitted that Security Deposit does form part of special conditions of contract. It was contended by the learned standing counsel that clause 51 of GCC primarily pertains to payment of final bill and therefore it is futile to contend that it pertains to refund of security deposit. 28. Be that as it may, with regard to question as to whether AT could have adjudicated upon the claims which did not form terms of reference, is a question which essentially turns on clauses 63 and 64 of GCC, which together constituted the arbitration agreement between the parties. To be noted, this reference to arbitration agreement is reference to arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 7 of A & C Act. 29. In other words, AT is clearly a creature of contract and it is in the nature of a private Tribunal. Therefore, scope of adjudication of AT, will certainly be governed by the terms of contract. Two case laws that were pressed into service in this regard, are O.P.PATHROSE vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 12 SCC 100 and MSK PROJECTS INDIA (JV) LIMITED vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 10 SCC 573 . 30. Therefore, scope of adjudication of AT, will certainly be governed by the terms of contract. Two case laws that were pressed into service in this regard, are O.P.PATHROSE vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 12 SCC 100 and MSK PROJECTS INDIA (JV) LIMITED vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 10 SCC 573 . 30. The principle that has been laid down in these case laws, i.e., O.P.PATHROSE and MSK PROJECTS, is to the effect that AT cannot deal with matters not allowed by contract/beyond the contract. Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principle that AT would have committed a jurisdictional error when it wanders outside the terms of a contract. 31. To avoid prolixity and to avoid this order becoming verbose, this Court does not embark upon the exercise of extracting the contents of the relevant paragraphs in O.P.PATHROSE and MSK PROJECTS. 32. Therefore, in the light of PATHROSE principle and MSK PROJECTS proposition, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that AT ought to have dealt with only claim Nos.3, 4, 5 and 8 which form part of terms of reference. The other 4 claims are clearly not arbitrable/excepted and therefore, AT ought to have been dealt with the same. 33. With regard to the aforesaid 4 claims, which AT was vested with the mandate to adjudicate, only refund of recovery towards LD survives, as that is the only claim which has been acceded to. To be noted, the other 3 claims which form part of reference have been negatived. This takes us to the manner in which AT has dealt with the question of refund of LD. 34. The finding which AT returned with regard to LD has already been alluded supra. It has also been extracted and reproduced supra. 35. The pivotal and sheet anchor contention of the learned standing counsel for Southern Railways in this regard as mentioned supra is to the effect that AT has relied upon delay on the part of Southern Railways to hold that the contractor is entitled to refund of alleged recovery towards LD, but that delay relates to period which do not impact the refund. It was also argued that Southern Railways was entitled to LD unconditionally. It was also argued that Southern Railways was entitled to LD unconditionally. In support of this submission, it was brought to the notice of this Court that prior to the commencement of arbitral proceedings which culminated in the instant OP, in A.No.4552 of 2006, an order came to be passed by this Court on 25.06.2007. This Court vide this order directed Southern Railways to give extension i.e., crucial extension dated 30.11.2006 without LD. 36. It is submitted that a review of the aforesaid order was sought for by way of an application taken out by Southern Railways and that application, is Application No.6446 of 2007. It was submitted that this review, i.e., Application No.6446 of 2007 came to be disposed of on 24.10.2007 and a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the review, by holding that it is open to Southern Railways, to grant extension on terms and conditions and for a period which is desirable at its discretion. This is contained in paragraph 7 of the order, which reads as follows: "7. In these circumstances, the following clarification is made. The Railways shall extend the currency period of the contract subject to the orders passed in the above writ petition. But the terms and conditions subject to which the currency period is extended and also the period for which it is extended is left to decision of the Railways." 37. Adverting to paragraph 7, learned counsel for Contractor, contended that this Court had permitted Southern Railways, to extend the period and the decision with regard to period/length of extension alone has been left to Southern Railways. A careful reading of the aforesaid order leaves this Court with no doubt that both the terms and conditions on which the extension is to be granted as well as period for which extension is to be granted are left to the decision of Southern Railways, as this Court has clearly held that the conditions subject to which the period is extended and also the period for which it is extended are left to the decision of the Railways. 38. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, it cannot be gainsaid that Southern Railways ought not to have granted extension dated 30.11.2006 under Clause 17(B) of GCC with LD. 39. 38. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, it cannot be gainsaid that Southern Railways ought not to have granted extension dated 30.11.2006 under Clause 17(B) of GCC with LD. 39. Now that extension is under Clause 17(B), the question is whether Southern Railways was correct in deducting the LD and deducting the same from the bills and monies payable qua the bills to the contractor. 40. The manner in which, AT dealt with this issue and the manner in which AT has returned a finding on this issue has already been alluded to supra. 41. A careful perusal of the Arbitral Award and the manner in which AT has dealt with this issue will make it clear that AT has appreciated evidence and materials before it and come to a conclusion. Any argument to the contrary/assailing the same will necessarily mean examination of the matter on merits again and it will also entail appreciation of evidence as enough and more evidence was before AT in this regard. In this context, this Court reminds itself of the time honoured Hodgkinson principle, which is to the effect that AT is the sole and final judge of the quantity and quality of evidence before it. 42. To be noted, the Hodgkinson principle has been referred to and explained by Honourable Supreme Court, in the celebrated and oft-quoted Associate Builders case being Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49 . 43. Therefore, this Court is unable to persuade itself to accept the contention of the learned counsel for Southern Railways that AT erred in awarding refund of LD. This Court finds no ground for judicial intervention with regard to the impugned award made by AT as far as it relates to direction to refund of LD. A perusal of claim as can be culled out from the impugned award would reveal that besides directing refund of LD, AT has also awarded interest of Rs.1,66,901/- (little over Rs.1.66 lakhs). 44. The question is whether AT could have awarded this interest. There is no dispute or disagreement that Rs.1,66,901/- is pendente lite interest. If it is pendente lite interest, the same can be awarded only if it is prescribed in the contract is learned standing counsel's say. 44. The question is whether AT could have awarded this interest. There is no dispute or disagreement that Rs.1,66,901/- is pendente lite interest. If it is pendente lite interest, the same can be awarded only if it is prescribed in the contract is learned standing counsel's say. Learned standing counsel for Southern Railways drew the attention of this Court to SREE KAMATCHI AMMAN CONSTRUCTIONS vs. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (WORKS), PALGHAT AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 8 SCC 767 , in respect of pendente lite interest. To be noted, this was followed by another learned brother Judge of this Court in DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) vs. VISHAL CONSTRUCTIONS reported in 2018 (3) CTC 285 . 45. Though there is a tome of case laws and trove of principles qua pendente lite interest, aforesaid case laws alone were pressed into service and these case laws support the argument that award of pendente lite is impermissible unless contract provides for the same. No further elucidation or elaboration is required with regard to the principle that pendente lite interest can be awarded only when contract provides for the same in the light facts and circumstances of instant case. There is no dispute or disagreement that pendente lite interest portion of impugned award warrants judicial intervention and it follows as a sequittur that, that portion of impugned award needs to be set aside. However, to be noted AT has also awarded post award interest. AT has made it clear that the monies awarded under impugned award are to be paid within 45 days from the date of signing the impugned award, failing which it will carry simple interest at the rate of 8% from the date of award i.e., from 09.05.2009 to the date of realisation. To be noted in the impugned award, there is mention about 8% which does not say whether it is per annum or per month. 46. Considering the nature of matter, both sides agree that it is obviously interest at the rate of 8% per annum. This the contractor will certainly be entitled to. In other words, it is made clear that post award interest is at the discretion of AT. In the instant case, AT has awarded a very reasonable interest i.e., 8% per annum from the date of impugned award to the date of realisation. This the contractor will certainly be entitled to. In other words, it is made clear that post award interest is at the discretion of AT. In the instant case, AT has awarded a very reasonable interest i.e., 8% per annum from the date of impugned award to the date of realisation. Therefore, the net result should be that the contractor would be entitled to refund of LD recovered in a sum of Rs.5,69,122/- with future interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of award i.e. 09.05.2009 to the date of realisation. To be noted, it is not in dispute before this Court, no payment was made within 45 days from the date of impugned award as stipulated therein. 47. Before concluding, this Court also makes it clear that while testing the impugned award on merits, this Court has reminded itself of the Fiza Developers principle laid down in Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited Vs. AMCI (India) Private Limited reported in (2009) 17 SCC 796 , wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that proceedings under Section 34 of A & C Act are summary procedures. In Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. v. Girdhar Sondhi reported in (2018) 9 SCC 49 , Fiza Developers principle was explained and while so explaining, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Fiza Developers principle is a step in the right direction qua expeditious disposal of applications under section 34 of A & C Act. This court makes it clear that instant OP has been disposed of by adopting Fiza Developers principle and by testing the impugned award by applying legal parameters adumbrated in section 34 of A & C Act. In other words, legal parameters/determinants falling within the statutory perimeter of section 34 were applied. To put it in a nutshell, impugned award was tested within the contours of section 34 of A & C Act. 48. In the light of the narrative supra, in the instant OP, the monies awarded by AT under Serial No.1 (final bill), Serial No.2 (refund of security deposit), pendente lite interest of Rs.1,66,901/- with regard to Serial No.5 (refund of alleged recovery of LD) are set aside. However, the sum of Rs.5,69,122/- (awarded towards refund of recovery towards LD) is sustained and upheld. To be noted, this sum is sustained and upheld together with 8% per annum post award interest. 49. However, the sum of Rs.5,69,122/- (awarded towards refund of recovery towards LD) is sustained and upheld. To be noted, this sum is sustained and upheld together with 8% per annum post award interest. 49. Therefore, instant OP is partly allowed and disposed of on above terms. Considering the nature of the matter and the trajectory of the hearing, this Court deems it appropriate to leave the parties to bear their respective costs.