The Court : A seemingly irrelevant submission on behalf of the respondent contractor afforded the Court an opportunity for course correction and appreciate that the quality and quantity of the evidence that was before the arbitrator and that may have satisfied the arbitrator may ordinarily not be gone into by a Court in proceedings for annulment of an arbitral award.

2. The primary ground urged by the petitioner in the present petition under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is that the claim could not have been carried to the reference since the contractor had no claim at all and, upon payment of the contractor's seventh RA and final bill on August 5, 1986, the obligation of the employer stood completely discharged. In support of such case of accord and satisfaction, the petitioner refers to the letters dated August 5, 1986, August 25, 1986, November 21, 1986, February 15, 1987, February 27, 1987 and March 21, 1988. The petitioner suggests that notwithstanding it being evident from one or more of the letters that a reservation was expressed by the contractor at a later stage after receiving the payment against the final bill, it is evident that there was no gr