As per case facts, the Petitioner (Port Trust) issued a tender for restoration work, which the Respondent completed with significant delay. The Petitioner withheld liquidated damages, leading the Respondent to ... seek arbitration. The Arbitrator, while acknowledging the Respondent's sole responsibility for the delay, directed the refund of liquidated damages, finding that the Petitioner suffered no actual loss and the damages levied were unreasonable and incorrectly calculated. The Petitioner appealed this arbitral award. The question arose whether the Arbitrator's decision to refund liquidated damages, despite the Respondent's delay, was legally justified given the contract terms and the need to prove actual loss. Finally, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the Arbitrator's findings that the Petitioner incurred no actual loss, saved money on the project, and the liquidated damages were unreasonably levied, thus finding no perversity or patent illegality in the award.