IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2008 M/s. Madhav Structural Engineering Ltd. .......Appellant versus M/s. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. ....... Respondents. Mr. A. Siddiqui a/w O.N.Pandekar, Matton Shaikh & Smt. P.U. Budadare for the Appellants Mr. P.P. Chavan i/b Ms. Reshmarani Mathani for the Respondents CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 18TH JULY, 2008. P.C.: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4th October 2007 rejecting the application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The Arbitrator has rejected the claim at serial no.1 made by the appellant, which relates to the cost of controlled blasting. With a view to overcome provisions of section 34 of the Act, it was contended before the Court below that disallowing of the claim is against public policy of India and hence the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the said objection. While dealing with the issue, the Arbitrator so also the Court has found that the said item was not included in the tender nor the same was taken up by the appellant at the pre-bid meeting and it is only after completion of the blasting work that the subject was taken up. It is thus clear that the parties had not agreed upon in relation to the separate rate of controlled blasting. After considering the merit of the claim for the controlled blasting, the same came to be rejected by the Arbitrator and the said finding has been endorsed as correct by the court below. It is not possible for this court to re- appreciate the evidence touching the claim at item no.1 in regard to the controlled blasting, when the same does not find place in the contract between the parties. There is no jurisdictional error. The view taken by the court below cannot be faulted as the same is a possible view. In the result, there being no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed. (A.P. DESHPANDE, J)