pvr 1 ap604-08 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.604 OF 2008 The Palm Acres Co-op.Housing Society Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. 1.Shree Mulund Construction Co. and others. ...Respondents --- Mr.Rajesh Shah i/b. Mr.Bipin Joshi, for Petitioner. Ms.R.C.Nichani, for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 24th March,2011 P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the Award made by the learned Arbitrator rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. pvr 2 ap604-08 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, the Arbitrator should not have relied on the report submitted by the Commissioner entirely; secondly, he submitted that the Award is contrary to the terms of the contract; thirdly he submitted that on the amended claim the learned Arbitrator should have permitted more than one witness to be examined. I have perused the record. It is clear from the record that the learned Arbitrator had appointed a reputed Architect as Commissioner to measure the construction made by the respondents to find out whether the construction exceeded the permissible construction under the contract. The Commissioner reported that the construction is below the permissible limit. The learned Arbitrator has adopted that finding as the parties had agreed that the Commissioner should not be cross-examined. In my opinion, the learned Arbitrator is fully justified on relying on the Commissioner s report entirely. I do not pvr 3 ap604-08 find that the Award of the learned Arbitrator is contrary to any terms of the contract. The building was to be constructed as per the DC regulations and therefore, the provision made for excluding certain area from calculation of FSI has been rightly taken into consideration by the learned Arbitrator. In my opinion, not permitting the petitioner to examine any more witness on the claim added by amendment cannot be termed as arbitrary, because the claims made by the petitioner by amendment are itself false and concocted. Considering the extremely limited jurisdiction of this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, in my opinion, the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, which is basically consist of finding of facts, cannot be interfered with. The petition is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.)