Contractual rate fixation limits arbitral power: tribunal cannot revalue a priced work item or rewrite the bargain.

Where a contract fixed the rate for earthwork under Schedule A, the contractor could not seek a higher amount on the ground that performance was more expensive. The arbitrator had no authority to re-assess the agreed valuation or rewrite the contractual rate, because an arbitral tribunal must give effect to the contract rather than substitute its own pricing judgment. The SC therefore upheld the High Court's interference with the award on Claim 4, holding that the enhanced rate awarded for the priced item went beyond the contract and beyond the arbitrator's authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitrator could enhance the agreed contractual rate for earthwork and sectioning to profile by re-assessing the contractual valuation, and whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the award on that claim.

Analysis: The contract itself fixed the rate for the relevant earthwork item under Schedule A. Once the parties had agreed to that rate, the contractor could not claim an additional amount merely because performance allegedly involved greater expenditure. The arbitrator's exercise of determining a higher rate for an item already priced in the contract amounted to going beyond the contract and beyond his authority. An arbitral tribunal cannot rewrite contractual terms or substitute its own valuation for an agreed contractual rate. On that basis, the High Court was justified in interfering with the award on Claim 4.

Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's interference with the arbitral award on Claim 4 failed, and the award could not be restored on that claim.

---