1 upa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.193 OF 2006 ARBITRATION PETITION NO.193 OF 2006 ARBITRATION PETITION NO.193 OF 2006 Capsultation Services Ltd. ).. Petitioner Versus M/s.Construction Technique ).. Respondents Mr.Harshad H. Trivedi for the Petitioner. Mr.Vishal Sheth i/b.Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 9TH AUGUST 2006 DATED : 9TH AUGUST 2006 DATED : 9TH AUGUST 2006 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . In the present Petition, the Petitioner contends that the Arbitral Tribunal was biased against the Petitioner since the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three members, of which two members were Civil Engineers, had prepared notes on which basis they made the Award. It is contended that these notes were not furnished to the parties for them to make any comments and, therefore, this procedure adopted smacks of bias. The judgments in the case of Union of India vs. M/s.Banwari Lal & Sons (P) Ltd., 2004 V AD (S.C.) 287 2004 V AD (S.C.) 287 2004 V AD (S.C.) 287 and Most.Etwari Devi and others vs. Most.Parvati Devi, 2006 I AD (S.C.) 652 2006 I AD (S.C.) 652 2006 I AD (S.C.) 652 are cited in support of this submission. It is also submitted that the Petitioner 2 i.e. the Respondent in the arbitration proceedings has been saddled with payment of certain amounts under the Award. The Petitioner’s contention that the work was defective has not been accepted by the learned Arbitrators by relying on these notes. 2. In my view, all these allegations cannot be made by the Petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as the reasons for setting aside the Arbitral Award circumscribed by that Section. The notes are part of the Award and are mere calculations on the basis of which the inferences have been drawn by the learned Arbitrators. 3. Hence, Petition dismissed.