Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J. – The appeal is directed against the order dated 28th of October, 2010 passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Patna in Misc. Case No.41 of 2006 dismissing the miscellaneous case filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) for setting aside the arbitral award dated 27th of August, 2006 passed by the sole Arbitrator, who was appointed by the nominated Judge of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Patna in Request Case No.16 of 2004.

2. The short facts are that an agreement was entered into between the appellant-Airport Authority of India and the respondent-Contractor with respect to the construction of shoulders, widening of turning pad and construction of perimeter road at Jai Prakash Narain International Airport, Patna. As per the terms of the contract, a period of six months was allowed for completion of the above work. However, since the work was not being completed within the aforesaid period of six months, the contract was rescinded. Thereafter the Contractor approached this Court through a writ petition vide CWJC No.7226 of 2003, which was disposed of on 12.12.2003, whereby one month’s further time was allowed for completion of the aforesaid work. The appellant-Airport Authority of India preferred an appeal, vide L.P.A. No.30 of 2004, which was disposed of by order dated 31st of March, 2004. However, the dispute between the parties could not be sorted out and thereafter the Contractor filed a Request Case No.16 of 2004 for appointment of the Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties. The nominated Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna appointed the Arbitrator as per the order dated 4th of May, 2005. Before the Arbitrator, the parties placed their respective cases. During the arbitration proceedings, the petition of the Contractor was to the effect that the machines and equipment as required in connection with the aforesaid works were being retained by the Airport Authority and the same were not being released even for its maintenance.The Arbitrator accordingly as per the interim award directed for release of the aforesaid equipment. The same having not been done, further award by way of interim award amounting to Rs.1,19,34,240/- was given. The Airport Authority against the aforesaid interim award filed Miscellaneous Case No.6 of 2006 in the court of the Subordinate Judge-I, Patna. However, during the pendency of the case, the arbitration proceedings continued and ultimately final award was given by the Arbitrator on 27th of August, 2006 incorporating the interim award as well to the tune of Rs.2,00,61,726/-. The said award was sought to be set aside on a petition under Section 34 of the Act filed on behalf of the Airport Authority of India, as noticed above. The same, on contest, being rejected, the present appeal is preferred.

3. Mr. K.N. Choubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, assisted by Junior Counsel Mr Arun Prakash, submits, inter alia, that even though the Contractor did not complete the work within the prescribed period, the Arbitrator allowed the award on various items without giving cogent reason in support of final award and the remunerations were also charged by him excessively on the higher side. It is further submitted that the Arbitrator ought to have remained within his jurisdiction and he has no authority in law to pass any award contrary to the agreement; more so the award is shocking and suffering from non-consideration of the case in its correct perspective. Besides, it is submitted that no compensation/damages, which could arise, as claimed by the Contractor, could have been allowed for the alleged loss of profit etc. in the light of Section 28(2) read with Section 31(3) of the Act as well as Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872.

4. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respond