JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This application raises the objections under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on behalf of the respondent/objector/ Northern Railways through Union of India to the Award dated 30th October 2000 which was corrected on 31st October 2000. While several objections were raised in this petition the only objection seriously pressed into service during arguments by the learned counsel for the respondents was that his plea regarding the interpretation of the effect of the price variation clause by the learned arbitrator.
2. The brief facts of the case averred by the petitioner are :
a) that the purchase order was placed on 3rd February 1992 for supply of 50,000 Nos. of M.S. Tie bars on the petitioner, M/s Suchita Steels (India), by the Union of India
b) that only material clause for the purpose of deciding the objections urged is the price variation clause which reads as under:
“Price Variation Clause Applicable Rate is based on price of Billets to IS :2830 as per JPC Announcement No. 401 dated 31.8.91 which is Rs.6175 PMT F.O.R. Rail Head Station plus stock yard margin Rs. 370 PMT plus size section extra for 50 mm billets which is Rs. 225 PMT as per JPC announcement no. 376 dt. 24.9.90 i.e. total Rs. 6770 PMT.
For every increase/decrease of Rs. 100 PMT in the price of billets the rate per tie bar will increase/decrease by Rs. 1.19 (Rs. One and paise nineteen only). The increase in price in accordance with price increase formula will be admissible for the material offer for inspection 30 30 days after the announcement of increase in price of raw material. The price increase will be admissible during original delivery period and not during the extended delivery period, if any.
The price increase will be applicable from the date of announcement regarding price decrease from the main producer and the same shall be admissible to the railway to the railway even during the extended delivery period, if any.
The seller will furnish the certificate against each bill that there has been no decrease in the price of raw material use for the manufacture of the stores. In case the certificate is found to be incorrect the contractor shall be liable for action.”
c) While the contract was subsisting the billet prices were increased with effect from 19th May 1992 and accordingly bills for price variation claims made in respect of the supply after increase in the prices was calculated by taking the difference in stock supplies prices of Steel Authority of India Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as SAIL) and the base price as stipulated in the contract.
d) It has further been submitted by the petitioner that the Central Railways and the Western railways had issued notifications in respect of the purchase order that SAIL’s price announcement shall be applicable in place of JPC’s price announcements.
e) The claim of the petitioner was based on the fact that out of 50,000 Tie Bars supplied as per the enhanced prices, respondents paid according to the price variation claim as per SAIL’s stock yard price only for 24,.000 tie bars but did not pay the price variation claim for the balance supply of 26,000 tie bars;
f) consequently the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.6,80,680/- in respect of price variation claim for 26,000 tie bars.
3. This claim has been upheld by the arbitrator while dealing with the claim of the petitioner in para 7.2.1 and he has taken into account the policy instructions issued by the Executive Director, Railway Board and the modifications to the purchase order issued by the Central Railways and the Western Railways to the effect that the SAIL’s price announcement shall be applicable for JPC’s price announcement. These policy instructions have been held to be applicable. The arbitrator has followed the instructions of the Railway Board and two constituents of the Indian Railways, namely, Central Railways and Western Railways and no legal error amenable to interference by virtue of the objections raised under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act can be found in the Award. The petitioner’s claim is based solely upon the policy guidelines issued by the Railway Board as well as that of Central Railways and the Western Railways. Furthermore, it is not some fanciful or arbitrary figure which have been adopted by the arbitrator but the prices fixed taken by SAIL, a public sector undertaking, which was a major constituent of the JPC .
4. Furthermore, the justification of the claim is also established by the acceptance of the SAIL rates by not only the Railway Board but also the Central Railways and Western Railways and there is no justifiable reason why similar claim in respect of Northern Railways should not be granted. The position of law, and the scope of interference with awards of arbitrator is well settled in M/s Sudarshan Trading Co. vs. The Government of Kerala and another, it has been held:
‘ Once there is no dispute as to the contract what is the interpretation of that contract is a matter for the arbitrator and on which court cannot substitute its own decision. If on a view taken of a contract, the decision of the arbitrator on certain amounts awarded is a possible view though perhaps not the only correct view, the award cannot be examined by the court. Therefore, the High Court has no jurisdiction to examine different items awarded by the arbitrator.”
Further it has been held by the Supreme Court in M/s Hindustan Tea Co. vs. M/s K. Sashikant & Co. & another, ,to the following extent:
“Under the law, the arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties. The award is not open to challenge on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate facts.”
The Supreme Court in Coimbatore District Podu Thozillar Samgam v. Bala Subramania Foundary and Ors., has held as under:
“Award can be set aside only if there is error of law apparent on face of record – Mistake of fact is not amenable to correction”
5. In none of the parameters indicated above, the plea raised by the objector falls. Furthermore, the claim is based on a supply made after a rise in official prices and even otherwise advances the cause of justice.
6. Since no other plea was urged by the petitioner, it is clear that the award is not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly the objections are dismissed and the award dated 30th October 2000 is made a Rule of the Court.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons the suit also stands disposed of. The decree be drawn up in terms of the award dated 30th October 2000.