Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. The neat question which arises for our consideration in this Appeal is whether the Arbitrator as well as the learned Single Judge fell into error in awarding the sum of ' 22,29,840/-, avowedly withheld by the Appellant on account of liquidated damages. According to Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Award was facially in excess of the jurisdiction and the powers reposed in the Arbitrator as it transgressed Clause 27 of the Contract dealing with compensation for delay (liquidated damages). Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on - (i) Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Annapurna Construction, (2003) 8 SCC 154 where Their Lordships had found that the Arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as it had not taken into consideration relevant clauses of the contract for purposes of determining the fact situation. (ii) In West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation v. Sushil Kumar Kayan, AIR 2002 SC 2185 the finding is to the effect that the Arbitrator rejected the plea that the value of the stolen goods should be restricted to their declared value. Clearly, however, this is not the factual matrix before us. (iii) In Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern Engineering Enterprises, (1999) 9 SCC 283 the Supreme Court opined that if the fundamental terms of an agreement are ignored by the arbitrator, he acts in excess of his jurisdiction. This is again of No. relevance to the contentions raised before us. (iv) In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. J.C. Budharaja, AIR 1999 SC 3275 the arbitrator awarded damages or compensation ignoring the prohibition contained in that contract. It was held that the Arbitrator had travelled beyond his jurisdiction.(v) Finally, the following paragraphs from Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705 have been pressed for our consideration:

66. In Maula Bux v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 554, the Court has specifically held that it is true that in every case of breach of contract the person aggrieved by the breach is not required to prove actual loss or damage suffered by him before he can claim a decree and the Court is competent to award reasonable compensation in a case of breach even if No. actual damages is proved to have been suffered in consequence of the breach of contract. The Court has also specifically held that in case of breach of some contracts it may be impossible for the Court to assess compensation arising from breach.

67. Take for illustration construction of a road or a bridge. If there is delay in completing the construction of road or bridge within stipulated time, then it would be difficult to prove how much loss is suffered by the Society/State. Similarly in the present case, delay took place in deployment of rigs and on that basis actual production of gas from platform B-121 had to be changed. It is undoubtedly true that the witness has stated that redeployment plan was made keeping in mind several constraints including shortage of casing pipes. Arbitral Tribunal, therefore, took into consideration the aforesaid statement volunteered by the witness that shortage of casing pipes was only one of the several reasons and not the only reason which led to change in deployment of plan or redeployment of rigs Trident-II platform B-121. In our view, in such a contract, it would be difficult to prove exact loss or damage which the parties suffer because of the breach thereof. In such a situation, if the parties have pre-estimated such loss after clear understanding, it would be totally unjustified to arrive at the conclusion that party who has committed breach of the contract is not liable to pay compensation. It would be against the specific provisions of Section 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act. There was nothing on record that compensation contemplated by the parties was in any way unreasonable. It has been specifically mentioned that it was an agreed genuine pre-estimate of damages duly agree