AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the judgment and order dated
20.11.2009, passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati in Misc (Arb) Case No.176/2007.
The respondent as the proprietor of M/S Rajlakshmi Gas Service, is the claimant before the sole Arbitral Tribunal of Shri A. Misra, claiming an
amount of Rs.21,96,720.00 and interest thereon against bills for toll charge from December, 2001 to May, 2004 against the present appellant.
The facts, upon which the claimant has founded the claim, may be recorded briefly. In pursuant to the tender No.NE/LPG/JT-2/2000, issued by the
appellant corporation for transportation of filled LPG cylinders in vertical position Ex-Duliajan, the claimant/respondent submitted his tender. The
claimant/respondent quoted, a price bid for transportation to Kamalabari as Rs.74.00 per cylinder exclusive of toll and ferry charges which would be
billed on production of actual Government receipt. The appellant vide its letter dated 21.02.2001, allotted the work order to the claimant/respondent.
Later on, the appellant offered the claimant/respondent Rs.65.00 per cylinder (rounded with) as transportation rate to and fro Kamalabari. In response
to the said letter, the claimant/respondent accepted the said rate of Rs.65.00 excluding toll and ferry charges which would be billed on production of
actual Government receipt issued by the District Authority which was clearly mentioned in the price bid. The claimant/respondent submitted its bill for
toll and ferry charges on various dates along with the receipts issued by M/S Priyam Carrying Service for Nimati-Kamalabari ferry service.
The respondent/appellant cleared the bill on 06.05.2003 for the month of February, 2001 to November, 2001 for toll and ferryghat charges for
transportation of LPG cylinder from Nimatighat to Kamalabari and back from Kamalabari to Nimatighat. The bill amount of toll and ferry charges
from December, 2001 to May, 2004 were not cleared by the Department of Finance of the appellant company though the same were served and
cleared by the Deputy Manager, LPG, Jorhat etc. Vide letter dated 10.11.2003, the appellant for the first time raised objection against the rate of ferry
charges and withheld the pending bills of the claimant/respondent. The ground for such withholding of the bills as informed to the claimant/respondent
that after processing the ferry charge bills for the period February, 2001 to November, 2001 payment for which was released and comparing the bills
of M/S Olee Bora (another transporter) for the same ferry crossing to Majuli, there was substantial difference in the rate charged by the
claimant/respondent and the one charged by M/S Olee Bora. The claimant replied to the above letter dated 04.12.2003 stating that he was not in a
position to comment on the rate quoted by M/S Olee Bora, asserted further that as per guidelines of Explosive Rules and Regulation and in the interest
of safety, he transhipped the LPG cylinder on exclusive ferries.
It was further stated that as per intimation of rate by the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, Dibrugarh, the rate of M/S Olee Bora
was pertaining to common ferries which were shared by public and not exclusively as used by him in the interest of safety. The rates claimed by him
were fixed by the Government of Assam and the payments of bills were sought in the form of reimbursement of the payment which he has already
made to the concerned authorities and as such did not carry any element of profit whatsoever. It was further pointed out by the claimant/respondent
that the rate charged by other transporters were in quintal basis and applicable to common ferries which were shared by to carry common goods to
Majuli Island and not for the exclusive ferries as used by him as per the guidelines of Explosives Department and to that effect, he produced the
certificate of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Garmur, Majuli, Government of Assam showing the toll charges as Rs.870.00 one way per full truck
of cylinders and ferry charge Rs.3,650.00 only per trip one way per full truck of cylinders.
He also submitted the letter dated 21.10.2003 issued by Office of the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, Dibrugarh issued to the
Executive Engineer, IOC (AOD) Ltd., stating that rate of ferry is Rs.20.00 per quintal for carrying general goods only and this rate is not valid for
carrying LPG as there is no approved rate against LPG fixed by the Government. The letter dated 18.09.2003, issued by the Department of Explosive,
Government of India advising the claimant/respondent to transport the LPG cylinders only and exclusively by boat in the interest of safety, the letter
dated 18.12.2003, issued by the Director of Inland Water Transport, Guwahati to Senior Area Manager, IOC (AOD) Ltd., informing the hire charge
of RPL in between Nimatighat to Kamalabari is Rs.5,000.00 only per day excluding POL etc. for carrying of goods etc. It is submitted by the
claimant/respondent that the above rate of Inland Water Transport is higher than the rate approved by the District Authority namely SDO (Civil)
Garmur, Majuli. That the Inland Water Transport has fixed the above rate for one day only but in his case it took at least four to five days to carry
filled and empty cylinders to and fro Nimatighat to Kamalabari. Accordingly, the claimant/respondent claimed the said amount of Rs.21,96,720.00
along with interest and an amount of Rs.6,67,584.00 with effect from June, 2004 to January, 2006 along with interest.
The appellant filed the written statement along with various documents and in the said written statement it has been specifically stated that the
appellant entered into the LPG transportation contract for the period from February, 2001 to May, 2004 and included reimbursement of payment to
LPG transporters against ferry, toll and octroi charges for river crossing location allowable, based on production of actual authenticated bills/cash
receipts, over and above land transportation charges. It has been stated further that upon review of the tender documents for the contract
commencing from February, 2001, it was observed that although tender terms did not specify separate charges to be paid for ferry crossing, the same
has been allowed during the course of the tender finalization. It was also pointed out that separate charges for ferry crossing, over and above the point
to point transportation rate were reimbursed in the preceding contract period. Transportation of LPG cylinders across the river required arrangement
of additional infrastructures like ferry, separate truck to carry cylinders on the other side of the river.
Only two transporters namely M/S Rajlakshmi Gas Agency, Kamalabari and M/S Olee Bora of East Indane Gas Agency, Jorhat had offered to carry
load to Kamalabari on the finalized rate and accordingly their trucks were engaged for transportation of LPG cylinders to and fro Kamalabari ex-
Duliajan LPG Bottling Plant while the last transportation rates have been regularly cleared by LPG Bottling Plant on uniform rate, transportation bills
for toll/ferry charges have already been separately cleared by the appellant upon submission of the same along with production of actual Government
authenticated bills by the transporters which were forwarded directly to Finance Department for release under the contract effective from February,
2001. Bills for toll/ferry charges for a period of 26 (twenty six) months were together raised for the first time by the claimant/respondent in April, 2003
and placed in the IOC(AOD) Area Division Office, Tinsukia which were cleared on the basis of the certificate issued by SDO (Civil), Majuli for toll
and ferry charges and actual authenticated bills. The toll/ferry charges against these bills worked out to be Rs.30.13 per cylinder.
Subsequently, in July, 2003, it was directed by the Finance Department that ferry crossing charges against bills received earlier and cleared by the
appellant at Jorhat directly for the period of February, 2002 to December, 2002 from the other transporter M/S Olee Bora, worked out to be around
Rs.12.43 per cylinder only which was based on letter issued by the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, Government of Assam,
Dibrugarh for goods toll charges of Nimati-Kamalabari ferry service. On specific enquiry from the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport
Division, the appellant collected that rate of Rs.20.00 per quintal in such ferry crossing is valid till date and the said rate is valid for carrying out
general goods only and not valid for carrying LPG as there is no approved rate against LPG fixed by the Government. It is also accepted that the
claimant/respondent was carrying LPG cylinders in an exclusive boat without sharing the same with general public on the strength of the letter issued
by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Guwahati intimating the claimant/respondent that there is no objection for transportation of LPG
cylinders by boat subject to the terms and conditions that no other article inflammable and hazardous nature should be transported along with LPG
cylinders and the transportation should be strictly in accordance with Rules 34 and 35 of Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981. The said instruction was issued in
the interest of safety. It is also taken note in the written statement that in the price bid it was specifically mentioned that rates are inclusive of
loading/unloading/stocking charges at both ends. Finally it has been disputed that the rate accepted by the claimant/respondent of Rs.65.00 per cylinder
is inclusive of toll and ferry charges for river crossing location. However, the same was paid separately against the actual production of authenticated
bills for earlier contract till January, 2001.
Considering the pleading and the documentary evidence along with oral evidence the learned sole Arbitrator awarded in favour of the
claimant/respondent thereby allowing the claim of Rs.21,96,720.00 and further directed to pay the award within two months failing which interest at
the rate of 8 percent shall be computed along with principal amount till realization from the date of award.
Being aggrieved by the said award dated 22.01.2007, the appellant preferred Misc. (Arb) Appeal No.176/2007 under Section 34 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.11.2009 by learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati. Thereafter this present
appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is preferred.
Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the Arbitral Tribunal committed serious misconduct. Instead of deciding
the claim of the claimant/respondent within four corners of the terms of the agreement, the learned Arbitrator has gone beyond the terms of the
agreement. The learned Arbitrator committed manifest error of law creating right in favour of the claimant/respondent and that too beyond the scope
of the contractual provisions by applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation to re-write the terms of the contract which was failed to be taken note
of by the learned court below. The rate quoted by the claimant/respondent is inclusive of toll and ferry charges, subsequent claim of the said toll and
ferry charges separately is beyond the scope of the terms agreed by the claimant/respondent, rather the learned Arbitrator considered the same
perfunctorily which the learned court below failed to take note of.
The appellant vide its letter dated 26.04.2001, called upon the claimant/respondent to intimate his acceptance of the work at the lowest quoted rate
which was Rs.65.00 per cylinder (rounded with) of inclusive of charges in accordance with clause-H (1) of the tender documents and having
accepted without objection, the claimant/respondent has no contractual right accrued in his favour entitling him to toll and ferry charges. A single
instance of payment of toll and ferry charge due to inadvertent mistake and overlooking contractual provisions which existed between the parties, the
same cannot by any stretch of imagination tantamount for acceptance on the part of the appellant of the condition of the payment of toll and ferry
charges. The said inadvertence was realized by the appellant for which further payment for toll and ferry charges were withheld. The said facts were
never looked into by the learned Arbitrator and the learned court below, following which there is a glaring mistake and error apparent in the award and
the judgment passed by the learned court below. It is further submitted that the observation made by the learned Arbitrator that the tender conditions
did not reveal anything about payment of toll and ferry charges but the subsequent findings that it is accepted by the appellant that such charges being
reimbursed historically, according to him, such finding goes to show that the learned Arbitrator had gone beyond the scope of the terms of the
agreement. Referring to the findings of the learned Arbitrator that the basis of the charges claimed by M/S Olee Bora have no backup documents
confirming the requirement of law is perverse finding and similarly none consideration of the rate assessed by the expert body for ferry crossing by the
learned Arbitrator also amounts to perversity and finally challenged the award in whole totally being without any jurisdiction.
Keeping in view the terms stipulated in the agreement, Mr. Sarma submits that the award passed by the learned Arbitrator is hit under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which the learned court below failed to take note of and as such he sought for setting aside the judgment
passed by the learned trial court. In support of his submission, Mr. Sarma relied on the decision reported in 2008 (13) SCC 80 (Delhi Development
authority vs R.S. Sharma and Company, New Delhi), and 2006 (1) SCC 86, (State of Rajasthan v. Nav Bharat Construction Co.).
Mr. Kataki, on the other hand, submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the award passed by the learned Arbitrator. The stand of the
appellant is clear and specific in order to come to the conclusion inasmuch as in the written statement it was specifically stated before the Tribunal
that though the tender terms do not specify separate charges to be paid for ferry crossing over and above the point to point transportation rates so far
such location is concerned, the same has been allowed during the course of the finalization of the tender process. Further it is that separate charges
for ferry crossing over and above the point to point transportation rates were reimbursed under the preceding contract period.
Admittedly though the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that no such toll and ferry charges are applicable but it is an admitted position
that the other transporter M/S Olee Bora is still being paid and as such there is no point in arguing by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
Arbitrator has gone beyond the stipulated terms of the agreement. It is the basis of the plea of the claimant/respondent which is supposed to be looked
into by the learned Arbitrator inasmuch as against specific query to the officials of the appellant there is an admission to the effect that M/S AOD has
been historically paying additional toll and ferry charges. Further pointing out to the queries by the Arbitrator that whether in the year 2001-04 the
contract included additional toll and ferry charges in the destination rate sought from the bidders the officials of M/S AOD replied in negative but in
the written statement the stand of the appellant is that the same was allowed during the course of tender finalization is sufficient to decide the appeal
against the appellant. It is further submitted by Mr. Kataki that the scope of examination by this Court the award passed by the learned Arbitrator is
very limited. The decision arrived at by the learned Arbitrator is based on material piece of evidence, both oral and documentary. There is no material
on record to show that the learned Arbitrator accepted any piece of evidence which is perverse in nature. Regarding the discussion of Arbitrator in
respect with the legitimate acceptance, Mr. Kataki submits that though it is true that the Arbitrator is bound to decide the dispute within four corners
of the agreement entered into by the parties but, the award shows that each and every issues discussed are based on evidence and no presumption
and assumption has been drawn by the learned Arbitrator while passing the award. Reiterating Mr. Kataki submits that there is no violation of any
terms stipulated under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 while passing the impugned award and the findings of the learned court
below is justified and there does not arise any question of interference by this Court.
In support of his contention and the extent of jurisdiction of this Court in deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996, Mr. Kataki relies
2013 (2) GLR 464, (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Astra Construction (P.) Ltd.).
Considered the submission of the learned counsel. The issue involved between the parties in the present appeal is in respect with the claim of the
claimant/respondent against toll/ferry charges from December, 2001 to May, 2004 which as per the contention of the claimant/respondent is that he
had paid it to the Government for toll and ferry charges for transportation of LPG cylinders from Nimatighat to Kamalabari and back from
Kamalabari-Nimatighat. The appellant though cleared the bill of toll and ferryghat charges for the month of February, 2001 to November, 2001 but
another contractor M/S Olee Bora also raised toll and ferry charge bills and on comparison, the appellant found that the rate charged by the
claimant/respondent is much higher than the one claimed by Ms. Olee Bora. Having found the said difference, the appellant held up the pending bills
of the claimant/respondent amounting Rs.21,96,720.00. In order to decide the said dispute, the same was referred to the learned Arbitrator and the
sole Arbitrator directed the appellant to pay the claimant his entire bill amount of Rs.21,96.720.00 within a period of two months, failing which interest
at the rate of 8 percent shall be computed along with the principal amount till realization from the date of the award.
Mr. Sarma, the learned senior counsel assailed the award and the findings of the learned court below that by applying the doctrine of legitimate
acceptance and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the learned Arbitrator rewrote the terms of the contract and allowed the claim of claimant
which is specifically barred by the contract. In addition to that, he also assailed that single instance of payment of toll and ferry charges due to mistake
and overlooking contractual provisions, the same cannot tantamount to acceptance on the part of the appellant of the conditions of payment of toll and
ferry charges. Referring the letter dated 02.05.2001, wherein the claimant/respondent claimed to accept the offer for transportation of LPG cylinders
to and fro from Duliajan Bottling Plant to Kamalabari at Rs.65.00 exclusive of toll and ferry charges, Mr. Sarma submits that the said letter was not
received by the appellant or any of its officials and in addition to that, the said letter indicates something fishy inasmuch as the letterhead varies from
the one on record of the appellant. The said submission was very much on record but even then the learned Arbitrator failed to take note of the said
fraudulent act of the claimant/respondent.
From the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant it is clear that this Court is to consider whether there is any patent illegality in the
award passed by the learned Arbitrator. In (2008) 13 SCC 80 (supra.), the Hon’ble Apex Court after going through the various decisions held
when an award to be interfered and the ambit and scope of Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and held as follows:-
“21.From the above decisions, the following principles emerges:
(a) An award, which is
(i) contrary to substantive provisions of law; or
(ii) the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Or
(iii) against the terms of the respective contract; or
(iv) patently illegal; or
(v) prejudicial to the rights of the parties; is open to interfere by the court under Section 34(2) of the Act.
(b) The award could be set aside if it is contrary to:
(a) fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(b) the interest of India; or
(c) justice or morality.
(c) The award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the court.
(d) It is open to the court to consider whether the award is against the specific terms of contract and if so, interfere with it on the ground that it is
patently illegal and opposed to the public policy of India.â€
Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, let me decide this appeal. I have perused the record and considered the submissions of both the counsels
for claimant and the appellant. In the written statement of the appellant it has been specifically admitted that separate charges for ferry crossing over
and above the point to point transportation rates were reimbursed under the preceding contract period. The transporters bill for toll/ferry charges have
always been separately cleared by the appellant upon the submission of the same along with production of actual authenticated bills/cash receipts by
the transporters. Further it has been pleaded that upon review of the tender documents for the contract commencing in February, 2001 (subject matter
of the Arbitration) it was observed that although tender terms did not specify separate charges to be paid for ferry crossing, over and above, the point
to point transportation sought for such location, the same has been allowed during the course of the tender finalization.
From the written statement itself, it is clear and apparent that the claim of the claimant regarding the toll and charges for ferry crossing was
allowed during the course of tender finalization which now the appellant cannot take up the plea that payment for toll/ferry charges was not agreed by
the appellant. Now the dispute is in respect with the rate which the claimant/respondent claims and as per the appellant is on the higher side compared
to the one claimed by another transporter Ms. Olee Bora. The learned Arbitrator while examining the matter considered an explanation forwarded by
the claimant/respondent that as per safety rules, LPG cylinders are to be transported exclusively without there being any other materials in the
transport vehicle nor there being any other passengers except the permitted one under the rules. On the other hand, the rate of Ms. Olee Bora is in
respect of transportation of LPG cylinders along with the passengers and other goods and the rate is on per quintal basis. The learned Arbitrator in
order to accept the said contention of the claimant/respondent, perused the tender conditions and took note of the Clause D prescribing safety
measures of the tender documents. Rule D (2) (i) stipulates that no other materials/goods are to be carried in the truck while it is loaded with LPG
cylinders. Rule D (2) (k), prohibits that apart from the driver and the helper, no other person is to be allowed to remain in the truck carrying LPG
cylinders.
The said Rules are as per Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981. In addition to that the learned Arbitrator took note of the exhibit of the claimant/respondent which
is the letter of Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Guwahati, addressing the claimant/respondent by which he was directed not to transport any
inflammable or other articles of hazardous nature with the LPG cylinders. Taking note of such materials on record, the learned Arbitrator came to the
finding that the claimant/respondent did not have any other option but to hire a ferry exclusively for causing transportation of such cylinders.
Moreover, the learned Arbitrator also came to the findings on perusal of the letter of the Executive Engineer of Inland Water Transport Division,
Dibrugarh dated 21.10.2003 and was satisfied to hold that the existing transportation rate on common items do not have any bearing with the rate of
LPG cylinders because there is no approved rate for LPG cylinders fixed by the Government. The said stand of the claimant/respondent could not be
refuted by the appellant. Accepting the said materials on record and the basis of claim of the claimant/respondent, the learned Arbitrator, going back
to the queries put to the appellant and the reply therein with respect to the basis of claim of ferry charges by Ms. Olee Bora held that since there was
no clear guidelines for causing such transportation of LPG cylinders, hence, the lowest bill without any backup valid documents regarding actual and
lawful payment of toll and ferry charges cannot be imposed forcibly upon the claimant/respondent who caused transportation of the same by
conforming the requirements of law and conditions of safety.
It is on the record that during the arbitration process the learned Arbitrator sought for copies of bills and backup documents of M/S Olee Bora related
to actual expenditure incurred by her for toll and ferry charges which was specifically answered by the appellant that no such backup documents were
in the custody of the appellant. Finally, the learned Arbitrator came to the findings that as there was no clear terms and conditions imposed upon the
claimant to cause transportation of LPG cylinders and on the other hand, the tender conditions directed to abide by the Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981 and
Rules of Explosive Substance Act and further considering that as per departmental approval note, additional toll and ferry charges were made a part
of the official system which were paid historically held that the bills submitted by the claimant/respondent has valid backup supporting documents
which could not be dislodged or refuted by the appellant. Further accepting the submission that the lower rate charged by the other transporter is in
quintal basis which is applicable for common ferries shared by common public with common goods which is not applicable for exclusive ferry as
required by the claimant/respondent under guidelines of the Explosive Department, Gas Cylinder Rules and as per conditions of contract held that the
appellant cannot deny the claim of the claimant/respondent.
The submission of Mr. Sarma that the learned Arbitrator went beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement thereby invoking doctrine of
legitimate acceptance cannot be accepted inasmuch as from the findings of the learned Arbitrator referred herein above, the learned Arbitrator came
to the conclusion that in order to comply with the rules and regulations holding the distribution and transportation of LPG cylinders, the claimant
incurred expenses as against the toll and charges for transportation of the LPG cylinders through ferry service. The tender conditions form the
stipulations of the agreement on the basis of which the appellant permitted the claimant/respondent to transport LPG cylinders from Duliajan Bottling
Plant to Kamalabari through Nimatighat. On perusal of the standard tender conditions for contract of vertical transportation of LPG cylinders by road
which consisted of the guidelines for safety under clause-D, the heading “safety†has been stipulated and specifically mentions that the
transportation of LPG cylinders are covered by the Gas Cylinders Rules, 1981 and the same will be the responsibility of the transporters to ensure that
truck in the operation, fully conforms to the above rules meaning there by the Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981.
Keeping in view the said terms, the appellant in its written statement pleaded that the tender terms though does not stipulate separate charges to
be paid for ferry crossing, however, the same has been allowed during the course of the tender finalization and admitted that transportation of LPG
cylinders to Kamalabari, located at Majuli involves ferry crossing across the river. The learned Arbitrator examined the basis of claim of the
claimant/respondent keeping in view the letters of the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport and in order to compare the basis of the claim of
the other transporter M/S Olee Bora sought for requisite documents which the appellant could not produce. The burden on the claimant/respondent
lies in order to explain the basis on which he claimed the amount mentioned in the bills so raised by him. That burden as seen from the award, has
been discharged to the full satisfaction of the arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator as referred by Mr. Sarma, the learned senior counsel for the appellant,
did not consider the said letter dated 02.05.2001 which as per Mr. Sarma was a forged one. The learned Arbitrator considered the statements made
by the officials of the appellant wherein it has been specifically admitted that such type of payment against toll and charges of ferry crossing had been
paid to the contractor historically. If, at all, the appellant was aggrieved for non-taking of requisite step by the learned Arbitrator against the alleged
forgery, a duty was cast upon it to ask for court assistance in taking evidence. However, the same was not done thereby indicating waiver of its right
and submitted to the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator.
Now at this stage, it cannot be raised, more so when the learned Arbitrator has not even relied the said letter dated 02.05.2001 purportedly written
fraudulently by the claimant/respondent. In the case of McDermott International Inc. vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others (2006) 11 SCC 181, the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that the 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure
fairness. Intervention of the court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice,
etc. The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired.
So, scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the court at minimum level . In 2006 (1) SCC 86 (supra.), it was held that an
Arbitrator cannot go beyond the terms and contract between the parties. In the guise of doing justice he cannot award contrary to the terms of the
contract. If he does so, he will have misconduct himself. Of course, if interpretation of a term of the contract is involved then the interpretation of the
Arbitrator must be accepted unless it is one which could not be reasonably possible. However, where the term of the contract is clear and
unambiguous the Arbitrator cannot ignore it.
From the discussion made herein above, it is seen that the learned Arbitrator decided the dispute within the four corners of the tender documents
forming part of the agreement between the parties and the findings are clear within the prescribed law of this country more specifically the Safety
Rules prescribed by the appellant. There is no misconduct on the part of the learned Arbitrator and the reasoning of the learned Arbitrator in coming
to the conclusion is logical and within the parameters in terms of the tender conditions keeping in view the safety rules in transportation of the LPG
cylinders and the same cannot be held to be patently illegal.
The findings of the learned court below is upheld thereby upholding the judgment and order dated 20.11.2009, passed by the learned District Judge,
Kamrup at Guwahati in Misc (Arb) No.176/2007.
This appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost. Send back the LCR.
The order dated 10.11.2010 passed in MC Case No.536/2010, thereby staying the operation of the judgment and order dated 20.11.2009, passed
by the learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati in Misc (Arb) No.176/2007, stands vacated.