As per case facts, the claimant and petitioner entered a building contract for construction. Disputes arose over pending bills, retention amounts, and claims for extra work. The petitioner argued that ... excess payments were made for less work completed and raised counterclaims for delay and completion costs. The Sole Arbitrator passed an award in favor of the claimant. The petitioner appealed to the High Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, challenging the award's findings. The question arose whether the Sole Arbitrator's award was intelligible, consistent, and based on a proper appreciation of evidence, particularly concerning unverified bills and the expert report. Finally, the High Court found the award unintelligible, contradictory, and in disregard of evidence, noting the Arbitrator's inconsistent treatment of uncertified bills and the dismissal of a relevant expert report without due consideration. The court set aside the entire award due to perversity and patent illegality, allowing parties to refer the dispute afresh to a new Arbitrator.