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 Authority of India v. M/s. ITD Cementation India Limited1. He submitted that the said decision had been upheld by this Court by judgment and order dated 24th April 20152 in Civil Appeal no. 9799 of 2010 and other connected cases. The submission is that the decision of this Court completely covers the respondent's claims nos. 1 and 3. The learned counsel invited our attention to the majority view of the Arbitral Tribunal on the claim regarding expenses incurred for making an embankment. It was submitted that the view taken by the majority is the view of the experts, which does not call for any interference. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 7. We may note here that the impugned judgments in all connected appeals are based on the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal no. 4702 of 2023. In this case,