((-1-)) HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 708 OF 2007 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 417 OF 2006 & ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 433 OF 2006 Shree Sai Enterprises ... Appellant Versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and anr. ... Respondents Mr. Rishabh Shah with Ms. Badra Dalal for the Appellants. Mr. Sayeed Akhtar for Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 25, 2008 DATED: JANUARY 25, 2008 DATED: JANUARY 25, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Admit. Heard counsel. . From proceedings arising between these parties, the award dated 21.9.2002 came to be passed which was the subject matter of the Arbitration Petition before this court being Arbitration Petition No. 205 of 2003. Before the learned Single Judge, there were only two challenges which were (i) that the award of Rs.10,314/- to the respondents therein against counter claim made by the respondents and (ii) rejection of the claim of the Petitioners for compensation @ 3% of the cost on account of idle ((-2-)) overheads. . In so far as first item is concerned, the learned Single Judge noted that the parties agreed that no reasons have been recorded for granting of the said amount and accordingly set aside the order. . In so far as second challenge is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that the Arbitrator has not given any reason and accordingly held that the rejection of the claim was without any reason and accordingly set aside that part of the award. . Subsequent to this, the parties agreed to refer the following claim for consideration and decision of the arbitral tribunal : "Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation @ 3% of the interest on account of idle overheads etc.?" . The learned arbitrator in his award dated 29.7.2006 instead of only dealing with the claim which was referred for his consideration, also referred to some other claims. The claim in so far as reference is concerned was partly allowed. The award was challenged by the appellants herein as also by the respondents by separate petitions. ((-3-)) . The appellants challenged the award on the ground that the entire claim in terms as claimed by them was not awarded. The respondents challenged the award on the ground that claims had been considered which were not the subject matter of the arbitral Reference. The learned Single Judge disposed of both the petitions by an order dated 21.4.2007. While disposing of the challenges considering Claim No. 1, Claim No. 2, Claim No. 3, Claim No. 3(a) to (d), Claim No. 4, Claim No. 5, Claim No. 7 and Claim No. 8 the learned Judge observed that they are rejected as the same are beyond the scope and power of the arbitral proceedings. In so far as the claim from which the reference arose, the award was not set aside nor was the appellants’ challenge accepted. . The appellants are aggrieved by the order of 1.4.2007. It is their contention that by setting aside the claim, the learned Single Judge had in fact has set aside what was already awarded in their favour pursuant to the earlier order and Judgment of this court which made the earlier award to the extent it was not set aside. We may clarify that what has the learned Single Judge as in the impugned order has merely held that it was not open to the arbitral tribunal to have considered the claims ((-4-)) which were not referred. In that context it does not mean that the claims which were awarded in favour of the appellants herein by the earlier Arbitral Tribunal award and which were subject matter of the challenge in this court in Arbitration Petition No. 205 of 2003 dated 20.1.2005 are set aside. The amounts payable under that award are payable to the appellants herein if not already paid. We thus clarify the order of the learned Single Judge in the present appeal accordingly. . In so far as the contention of the Petitioner that the arbitration Tribunal was not right in not awarding the entire amount as claimed. Such a challenge must fall within the ambit of Section 34. The learned tribunal has considered the case on merits based on the material and has awarded the amount as awarded. The challenge therefore, would not fall within the ambit of public policy or on other grounds available under Section 34(2) of the Act. . On behalf of the respondents, the learned counsel states that the amount awarded in terms of the award along with interest has already been paid to the appellants herein. . With the above clarifications, Appeal disposed of ((-5-)) accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)