As per case facts, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) licensed a parking site to Kalwa on an 'as is where is' basis. Kalwa raised concerns about encroachments and lack of ... promised facilities immediately after acceptance but took possession. DDA initially denied issues but later acknowledged some and promised rectification. When DDA invited new tenders during the contract, Kalwa sought arbitration for losses due to the incomplete site. The Arbitrator awarded Kalwa a refund of license fees and compensation for operational losses, among others. DDA challenged this, but the District Judge upheld the award. DDA then appealed to the High Court. The question arose whether the Arbitrator's and District Judge's interpretation of the 'as is where is' clause was perverse or patently illegal. Finally, the High Court found the Arbitrator's interpretation of the 'as is where is' clause to be perverse and patently illegal, as Kalwa had inspected the site and was aware of conditions before bidding. The court set aside the awards for license fee refund and operational loss compensation but upheld the refund of security deposit, litigation expenses, and interest.