shows that the site was ready at the end of 1994, therefore, the question is whether there was delay after December, 1994. However, Mr.Zaiwala submits that unless and until it is proved from the record that the date taken into consideration by the Sole Arbitrator namely 30.08.1995 is final date of extension, the Arbitrator could not have presumed that the claim for liquidated damages accrued on that date, more so when hot commissioning was done on 20.12.1995. If hot commissioning could not have been done without any supply of electricity as admitted by the Respondent/Claimant, then, the learned Arbitrator could not have awarded the liquidated damages on the basis that for the period of 15 weeks, there was no justification. 3 The second submission of Mr.Zaiwala is with regard to the claim for refund of excess amount paid by the Respondent/Claimant to the Petitioner Company being a sum of Rs.1,23,492.65 and for recovery of Rs.38,77,233/- being the value of the goods appropriated by the Claimant. Mr.Zaiwala submits that on own showing of the Arbitrator if the Respondent had by a letter dated 02.08.1997 referred to certain supplies of total value of Rs.38,77,213/- and stated that the payments have not been coming from the Petitioner’s side and therefore, the Petitioners’ executives approached the Respondents with request to adjust Rs.18 lacs against the amount due towards supply of equipments made by the Petitioners and which sum of Rs.18 lacs is also reflected in the statement, then, the learned Arbitrator could not have awarded under this head the sum which he quantifies namely Rs.31,27,233/-. For all these reasons, in this case the award is contrary to the terms of contract and in any event is perverse because it is against oral and documentary evidence. The claims could not have been awarded at all on the basis of the material produced, therefore, the award requires to be set aside and this Court must exercise
