Mr. K. Kannan J.: - The revision petition challenges the order passed by the Additional District Judge confirming the decree of the Court of 1st Instance making the award of the Arbitrator the rule of Court. The arbitral reference had been with reference to work entrusted to a contractor for construction of SYL canal. The Arbitrator by his Award admitted several claims of the contractor including the delayed cost for completion of work as arising out of delay in handing over the property to the contractor and the resultant loss under various heads. The Court, which the award had been sent for making it rule of Court, found nothing seriously amiss and affirmed the award. In the appeal filed, the Appellate Court held that it could not treat itself as a Court of appeal and there was nothing on evidence that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself or had admitted of any claim which was not the subject of averment and arbitral reference. Against these orders of the Courts below, present revision petition is filed by the State.

2. Even at the outset, I must set boundaries within which I propose to traverse that it shall be seen exclusively through the principles of Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act that would require an examination whether the Arbitrator misconducted himself or that the Arbitrator’s award had been inappropriately procured or otherwise invalid. Further, there is no ground that there was any order of Court superseding the arbitration and consequently, the invalidity that may arise under Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1940 is not required to be examined.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State took me though each one of the claims and wanted to explain as to how the Arbitrator had committed mistake and the Courts that had affirmed the award had failed to exercise the jurisdiction to modify or set aside the award in the manner that the situation warranted. To go through the respective claims and the contentions raised by the counsel appearing for the State, I would set out the matter that would require an examination of the various heads which were adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator.

4. Claim No.1 is with reference to loss of profit arising out of delayed handing over of the property. The tender for the work was accepted by the department on 10.11.1985 and the agreement was executed on 24.01.1986. The notice preceding the agreement stated that the contractor could start the work immediately but it is an admitted fact that possession of the land was handed over only on 19.06.1986 in view of certain objection by the land owner and the award for acquisition of the land was itself passed only on the day when the property could have taken possession. There was clearly a case of machinery and labour of the claimant remaining idle from 10.11.985 to 19.06.1986 that is a period of about 7 months 9 days. The Arbitrator assumed that the contractor would have made a profit at least of 10% of the value of work and worked out Rs. 10,02,344/- as the likely profit and provided for 50% of the same as an anticipated profit namely Rs. 5 lacs as the compensation for loss of profit. The counsel for the State would argue that that the contractor had not produced any wage book for proof of payment of wages for workers during the idle period or that any machineries had been deployed at the spot for which hire charges had to be paid or investment had been made for deploying them at the site. Indeed, the site was handed over subsequently. I noticed that the contractor had issued notice on 01.10.1986 pointing out to the fact that the department could not hand over the site upto September, 1986 and that too was only handed over in part and in the major portion of the land running to a length of about 100 meters, rice crops, sugercane crops and eucalyptus trees had been left unharvested. The contractor has made the issue of the fact that the department would have to reimburse the loss suff