DESHMUKH D. K. , J.

( 1 ) THE Petitioner/municipal Corporation of the Gr. Bombay by this petition filed under section 24 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 challenges the award made by the sole-arbitrator dated 10th November, 2002 directing the Petitioner to pay certain amounts with interest to the Respondent. Admitted position is that the Petitioner had entered into a contract pursuant to a global tender floated by the Petitioner in February, 1998 for supply, delivery, erection and commissioning of a 455 MLD Water treatment Plant and construction of Associate Civil Works at Panjrapur. That contract had an arbitration clause. The arbitration clause provided for appointment of single arbitrator by consent of parties or appointment of three arbitrators, one by the Corporation and other by the Respondent and third arbitrator by the President of the International Chamber of Commerce. But in the present case a single arbitrator was appointed by consent of the parties. The arbitration clause also provided that the arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with Rules and Procedure for Arbitration of the International chamber of Commerce (herein after referred to as "icc" ). After the Arbitrator was appointed, the first meeting was held on 24th March, 1999. In that meeting the Advocate appearing for the Respondent pointed out that according to arbitration clause the arbitration proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with the ICC Rules of Arbitration. It is stated in the minutes of the meeting dated 24th March, 1999 that the Advocate appearing for the Corporation sought time to consider the situation. The Respondent addressed a letter dated 13th April, 1999 to the International Chamber of Commerce informing them that as per the contract between the parties by consent of parties the sole arbitrator has been appointed to decide the dispute between the parties. The second sitting with the arbitrator was held on 30th July, 1999. In the minutes of the proceedings the arbitrator has noted that on behalf of the respondent it was stated before the arbitrator that they have written letter dated 13th April, 1999 to the International Chamber of Commerce, but no reply is yet received. On behalf of the claimant, it was also stated that they would expedite the process of getting the concurrence of the ICC for appointment of the sole arbitrator. In the meantime, it appears that on 19-1-2000 the arbitrator addressed a letter to the Petitioner/corporation, where he quoted his fees for carrying out the arbitration proceedings. In that letter he stated that if the arbitration is to be carried out under the ICC Rules what would be the fees to be charged by the arbitrator. By letter dated 21 st February, 2000, the arbitrator clarified what fees he will charge for carrying out arbitration according to ICC Rules. In the letter dated 13th March, 2000 written to the corporation by the arbitrator, the arbitrator stated thus in paragraph (3. 1) :3. 1 The Arbitration Agreement under the Clause 67 of the Contract was the subject of much debate between the learned Counsel of both parties at the hearing of the Preliminary Objections held on 11th-12th February, 2000. On hearing both sides, I came to the conclusion that the Arbitration could be conducted in accordance with the Rules and Procedures for Arbitration of the ICC without it being done under the umbrella of the ICC, but to the extent that the Rules are not in conflict with the substantive laws of the land such as the Indian Arbitration Act, 1966, the Indian Contract Act 1872, the Limitation Act 1963, etc. , as found applicable as the arbitration proceeding. In paragraph (4. 1) the sole arbitrator referred to the contingency of his appointment being confirmed by the ICC. Para 4. 1 reads as under :- 4. 11 am fully aware of the ICC Rules governing the Arbitrators Fees as given in Appendix III of the ICC Rules but I would like to point out that I am not under the jurisdiction of the