Arbitration award upheld as it was not perverse or opposed to public policy

1. There was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent underwhich the petitioner would make available imported prime coking coal to the respondent from the port of Paradeep for such coke to be converted to BP hard coke. The dispute pertains to 29 railway wagons which left Paradeep for delivery of the coal contained therein at the respondent's site at Durgapur but were misplaced by the railways and never reached the destination.

2. At a meeting of September 1, 1993, a kind of a settlement was arrived at between the parties which has been quoted in the award.

3. The respondent-claimant contended before the arbitrator that the agreement of September 1, 1993 was a product of fraud and misrepresentation as the fundamental premise on which such agreement was founded was non-existent as the petitioner had not made a claim for the missing wagons. The arbitrator did not accept the contention of misrepresentation, but certainly found that there may have been an element of miscommunication in such regard.

4. The arbitrator awarded the principal amount claimed in respect of the 29 wagons and did not permit any interest for the pre-reference period since the arbitrator found that the respondent herein had contributed to the confusion as to the lodging of the claim.

5. Since there is no merit in the challenge and the arbitrator has taken a view which was eminently possible on the set of facts and material available before him, the award does not call for any interference. It must be remembered that in this jurisdiction, the Court does not sit in appeal over an award or go through the same with a fine toothcomb to find out faults therein. As long as an award does not appear to be perverse or otherwise opposed to public policy or shocking to the Court's conscience, the outcome of an adjudication carried by the parties to a private forum must always be respected.