As per case facts, the petitioner, M/s.Muthu Construction, entered a contract with Southern Railway for repairs, specifically SA/280. The petitioner's claim regarding payment for "track metre" measurements was rejected by ... the Arbitral Tribunal's majority. The petitioner appealed to the High Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The question arose whether the majority award was biased or suffered from patent illegality due to misinterpretation of the contract's "per track metre" clause. Finally, the High Court found the majority's interpretation of "per track metre" to be perverse and outside contract terms, indicating patent illegality. Acknowledging the dissenting arbitrator's claims of bias, the High Court concluded the award was tainted by bias/premeditation, violating natural justice and Indian law's fundamental policy, thus setting aside the majority award with costs.