JUDGMENT :

I. P. MUKERJI, J.

1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is the third round. The first round was before the learned arbitrator. He made and published an award on 30th January, 2018 for Rs.1,37,25,252/-in favour of the appellant dealing with their claims 1 to 5 together with interest and the counter claim of the respondent state. The second round was an application by the respondent under Section 34 of the said Act before the learned District Judge, Purba Medinipur, challenging the award. The learned District Judge by a detailed judgment and order dated 8th March, 2019 set aside the award for claims 1 and 2, and upheld the rest of the award. The third round is the appeal before us. The respondent has preferred a cross-objection.

2. Before us, on one hand, the award is for scrutiny. On the other hand, are the principles of law circumscribing the powers of the appeal court in interfering with the judgment of the court below made after a detailed scrutiny of the award.

3. A short background of the case is now necessary.

4. The agreement between the parties was made on 22nd December, 2010.

5. The work involved was widening and strengthening of 13 kms. of Egra, Bajkul Road (43 km – 30 km) in the Tamluk Highway division of Purba Medinipur district. The appellant was engaged by the respondent as a works contractor. They were to do this work in about one and a half years from 22nd December, 2010, the date of the work order. The date of completion of the work was 22nd June, 2012. It could not be completed in this period. Both the parties exchanged allegations against each other for the delay in the completion of the work. It was ultimately completed on 9th November, 2012. There was no formal extension of the time period for completion. More than six months after completion of the project, the appellant on 12th June, 2013 raised a bill for escalation.

6. In 20th May, 2016, the appellant invoked the arbitration clause. They made a total claim of Rs.4,71,16,939/-before the learned arbitrator which is more fully shown in the table below:

7. There is no grievance of the appellant with regard to the payment of the consideration under the contract. In fact, the appellant has admitted in their written notes of argument that measurement of the work was taken by the respondent and payment made. There is a claim for interest for the delay in payment and for payments for extra works together with claims in the nature of damages.

8. Before the learned arbitrator the appellant made claims under several heads.

9. The first was captioned as “loss of business”. The claimed amount was Rs.80,84,649/-. The foundation for this claim was this. The value of work executed beyond the completion date was Rs.4,04,23,245/-. This amount became payable to them after five months, which was the overrun period. They were deprived of enjoying the “profit” that would have been earned had the work deem done and payment been made on time. This was estimated to be Rs.87,26,876/- applying a formula known as Hudson formula in building engineering contract.

10. The learned arbitrator in his award dated 30th January, 2018 went by a completely different route. Although not claimed by the appellant, he treated this claim as one for “off site expenses”. He ruled that 1.5% of the proportionate contract