this activity has to be a part of clearing and grubbing. On facts, she submitted that no evidence had been placed on record to show that the Engineer had required the respondent to remove the top 150 mm of soil in all places. She submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal and the Courts must strictly interpret the contract. Just because the respondent has Civil Appeal no.4702 of 2023 etc. Page 5 of 15incurred some expenditure, it would not amount to a liability on the appellant which is covered by clause 70.8 of the agreement. She has pointed out the factual aspects of the connecting cases. 6. The learned counsel representing the respondents in the appeals pointed out that the scope of interference in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is narrow, and the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court under Section 37 is still narrower. The learned counsel pointed out that the impugned judgments relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of the National Highways