1 arbp1098.10.sxw ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1098 OF 2010 M/s. Body Thirst. .. Petitioner versus Impex Engineers. .. Respondent. Mr. Vikram Sathey, Ms. Jyoti Ghag i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Asso., advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.D.Dhanuka i/b. Vaishali Choudhari, advocate for Respondent. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 14TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1 The Petitioners have challenged the Award rendered by the sole arbitrator . 2 The Petitioner awarded a contract to the Respondent for repairs and renovation of the premises. The Award directs the balance payment under the second running account bill, which is duly certified by the Architect. The Award also directs a very marginal sum towards delay in clearing the bills and loss of profit. The delay is compensated by awarding of interest. Rest of the 2 arbp1098.10.sxw claims of the claimants/respondent have been rejected. 3 The Respondent had to bear even the cost of Arbitration. It is unfortunate that the Arbitrator has to make award even for reimbursement of Arbitrator’s Bill, which were paid by the Respondent/claimant. It is unfortunate that the Arbitrator has to make award for reimbursement of venue charges for 18 meetings, which were held and the Petitioner did not turn up for most of them. 4 The case of the Petitioner is that beyond the sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs, nothing was due and payable including the sum claimed towards second running account bill. The Arbitrator has found as a matter of fact as to how the Respondents have proved that the second running account bill was certified on 7th September, 2004 by the Architect. If the version of the Petitioner is that the payment of Rs. 15 Lakhs has already been made in full and final settlement and nothing more above the said sum is due and payable, then, it was for the Petitioner to substantiate that version. That version is neither substantiated nor proved. The conclusion of the learned Arbitrator is not such which can be termed as perverse, so as to call any interference in my limited jurisdiction. This is not a case where the Court can undertake reappreciation and reappraisal of 3 arbp1098.10.sxw the material produced. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the Petition. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)