P.B. Jagtyani And Co. And Anr. vs Gaurav Agencies And Anr.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1041 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar, J.

1. This order shall dispose of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the petitioners against the award dated 15th February, 2000 given by Mr.Pramod Maheswari, Arbitrator, Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Registered), Chandni Chowk, Delhi in Arbitration Proceeding No. 152/98-99.

2. Brief facts to comprehend the objections raised by the petitioners are that the petitioners contended that they had been purchasing poplin cloth from the wholesale supplier, M/s. Gaurav Agency, sole proprietorship firm of M/s. Arvind Kumar Modi and Sons (HUF). The accounts for the purchases which were made on 16th July, 1997 and 5th August, 1997 were settled between the parties on 8th September, 1997. For these purchases, the petitioners had placed orders in writing which were accepted by the respondent No. 1 and thereafter the goods were supplied and the bills were raised. The petitioner contended that the accounts in relations to these transactions were settled on 8th September, 1997.

3. The petitioner asserted that thereafter they again entered into an arrangement/transaction with respondent No. 1 for supply of 70000 meters of 50s poplin cloth. Before entering into a contract for the supply, the parties had discussion in relation to terms and conditions and on the basis of the terms and conditions agreed between the parties, an order/confirmation dated 19th September, 1997 was issued by the respondent No. 1. It was averred that it was agreed that the substantial order will be supplied by 30th October, 1997 and the balance by 15th November, 1997. Payments were to be made by giving 20 days post-dated cheques against delivery.

4. The petitioners averred that till 5th August, 1997 and before 8th September, 1997, the business dealing between the parties were on the basis of printed terms and conditions on the invoices of respondent No. 1, however, the new order which was placed for 70000 meters of poplin was without agreeing to any of the printed terms and conditions. Since the respondent No. 1 had agreed to the new terms and conditions and had confirmed the order, the terms and conditions which were agreed to be in writing in the order/confirmation dated 19th September, 1997 were different from earlier orders. The order was confirmed and the confirmation was as under:-

GAURAV AGENCIES

4951, 1st Floor, ashima

Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 TEXCELLENCE

Phones: 2943549/3550/3551

Fax: 011-2935002

19 September, 1997

To Fabric Aid India Delhi

Order Confirmation

Quality : 50's Poplin

Rate : Rs.48/50 P.M

Quantity : 70,000 Mts.

Delivery : Mostly By 30-10 balance by 15-11-97

Payment : 20 Days Post Dated Cheque against Delivery

Thanks N Regards

Arvind Modi

Distributors For Northern India: ashline FUSIBLE MICRODOT INTERLININGS

5. The petitioners contended that against the 70,000 mts. quantity of the cloth agreed to be sold and delivered by the respondent No. 1, only 45251.50 meters of cloth was supplied by respondent No. 1 to petitioners by 6th December, 1997. As had been agreed, the entire supply was to be done by 15th November, 1997, whereas by that date only 20470 meters of poplin cloth was supplied by respondent No. 1 to the petitioners.

6. The petitioners stated that despite receiving the cloth from the mill, the respondent No. 1 did not sell the cloth to the petitioners and committed breach of agreement for supply of 70000 meters of poplin cloth to the petitioners by 15th November, 1997.

7. On account of non-supply of the balance quantity of the popline cloth and in respect of the price of 45251.50 meters of cloth which was supplied, disputes arose between the parties which were referred to the arbitration by Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Registered) Delhi. The sole Arbitrator, Mr.Pramod Maheshwari, after considering the claims of the respondent No. 1 and the defense of the petitioners, gave an award for Rs.23,09,303/- and 18% interest per annum from 1st September, 1998 till realisation of the amount to the respondent No. 1.

8. The petitioners have challenged the award on the ground that it is bad in law as there was no arbitration agreement between the parties and the arbitrator had no authority to enter upon reference and adjudicate upon the specific issues/disputes/claims on merit. The petitioners contended that respondent No. 2/Arbitrator ignored the material documents from which the rights and liabilities of the parties could emerge, in the circumstances, the award suffered from non-application of mind. The petitioners emphasized that they are not the members of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Registered) Delhi, and, therefore, the rules and regulations of the said association are not binding upon the petitioners and there is no subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties. The petitioners also complained that the Arbitrator, respondent No. 2, is a panel member of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Registered) Delhi and thus has got vested interest in the Association as well as towards its members who had ignored the principles of natural justice.

9. The petitioners have also objected to not framing the issues with respect of loss suffered by the objector on account of non-supply of goods by the respondent No. 1 and that the arbitrator did not consider the fact of non- production of original GR receipts maintained by the respondent No. 1. The petitioners also objected to non-consideration of the fact that M/s. Ashima Syntex Mills Ltd had supplied the cloth to the respondent No. 1 but he failed to deliver the same to the petitioners.

10. The petitioners also Challenged the award on the ground that the Arbitrator had to decide whether there was an arbitration agreement between the parties only on the basis of confirmation dated 19th September, 1997 reproduced hereinabove and not on the basis of anything else. The petitioners also objected to the award on the ground that there was no agreement for payment of interest and consequently award interest at @ 18% on the amount allegedly due from the petitioners to the respondent No. 1 is without notice which is also contrary to the statutory provisions of Interest Act.

11. The petitioners challenged the award on the ground that no reasons were given and the Arbitrator also failed to give findings on all the issues.

12. The objections are contested by the respondent No. 1 contending that there had been a running account between the petitioners and the respondent No. 1. The price of goods sold and delivered to the petitioners used to be debited in their account and the amounts paid towards the price of goods used to be credited. The respondent No. 1 contended that the goods were sold subject to the agreed terms and conditions printed on the sales bills of the respondent No. 1. The allegations of the petitioners that the terms and conditions for supply of 70000 meters were different and were restricted to confirmation order dated 19th September, 1997 was not admitted. The respondent No. 1 contended that petitioners refused to take goods after 6th December, 1997 and also failed the make the payment and consequently the petitioners are liable to pay the price of goods sold and delivered to them and they are also liable to be pay interest as the amounts due from them were demanded and they failed to pay the amounts due.

13. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties at length and perused the award and the arbitration record. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners Shri A.P.S Ahluwalia restricted his arguments to the objection that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties and that the Learned Arbitrator could not award interest in the facts and circumstances. The learned Counsels for the petitioner relied on AIR 1924 Sind 75 to contend that there is patent error of law which vitiates the award and therefore the award is liable to be set aside

14. The respondent No. 2/Arbitrator had framed the following issues.

1)Whether the valid and subsisting arbitration agreement exists between the parties, through the adjudication of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association

2)Whether the claim petition is maintainable in present form

3)Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest and if so, at what rate

4)Whether the petitioner had received the goods from M/s. Ashima Textiles and deliberately not given to the respondent

5)Whether the petitioner had supplied the entire material with respect to the order confirmation dated 19-9-97

6)Whether the petitioner has served the appropriate notice before referring the matter with new law laid down

7)Whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount of claim

8)Relief

15. Regarding the arbitration agreement between the petitioners and the respondent No. 1, the Arbitrator noticed that the bills covered under the claims as also the receipts given by the petitioners were subject to the rules of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association printed thereon. The bills were exhibited as Ex.CW1/1 to CW1/13. The term on the bills was as under:

8. Goods sold as per rules and regulations of the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Regd.). In case of any dispute between the parties, matter will be referred to Arbitrator appointed by Association and his decision shall be binding on the parties.

On the basis of these documents, the arbitrator held that there is an arbitration clause for adjudication of disputes with Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Registered) and so the issue that whether there was a valid and subsisting agreement between the parties was decided in favor of respondent No. 1.

16. The emphasis of the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that the terms and conditions of the order placed for 70000 meters of clothes were different from the terms and conditions which were agreed for the earlier supplies made by respondent No. 1 to the petitioners. According to the petitioners the terms and conditions for the supply of 70000 meters of cloth were restricted to whatever was incorporated in the confirmation letter dated 19th September, 1997.

17. However, the receipts of the goods for 70000 meters of poplin cloth shows that the goods were sold and delivered subject to the rules of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association which receipt has been exhibited and proved as Ex.CW1/9. The bill which was issued by the respondent No. 1 for 70000 meters of cloth bore No. 7575 and the following receipt which was given by the petitioners also bore No. 7575 which is as under: Received from M/s. Gaurav Agencies, Delhi the goods in good condition as per above Bill No. 7575 dated 5th November, 1997. The above goods in are sold subject to the Arbitration of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association and decision of the arbitration shall be final and binding. No. of Pcs.19 Rolls 7575 SD/- Buyers signature

18. Another document relied on by the learned Arbitrator is the statement of account of M/s. Gaurav Agency which was exhibited as CW1/14. This ledger account of the petitioners in the account books of respondent No. 1 is not denied by the petitioners. This ledged account is for the period of 1st April, 1997 to 31st March, 1998 and shows that sales made by the petitioner and the amount received.

19. Though the petitioners have stated that 70000 meters of poplin were only subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in order/confirmation dated 19th September, 1997, however, the printed terms and conditions incorporated in the bill for supply of a part of 70000 meters of poplin, supplied on 27th November, 1997 and 6th December, 1997 had not been refuted. No documents had been produced by the petitioners to show that they did not agree to the terms and conditions which were printed on the invoices issued by the respondent No. 1. The petitioners had rather given the receipt dated 5th November, 1997 which categorically stipulated that the goods were accepted by the petitioners subject to the arbitration of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association. If that be so, the objection of the petitioners that there was no arbitration agreement and there was no valid and subsisting arbitration agreement between respondent No. 1 and the petitions for supply of 70,000 meters of poplin cloth is not sustainable.

20. An arbitration agreement should be in writing i.e its terms should be reduced to writing but if the agreement is not signed and is established by another written contemporaneous document, it will be binding between the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore Remeshwardas Vs Goolbai Hormusji held that in order to constitute an arbitration agreement in writing it is not necessary that it should be signed by the parties, and it is sufficient if the terms are reduced to writing and the agreement of the parties thereto is established. In 20 (1981) DLT 454, Krishan Chander Ramesh Chander and Bros. Vs Sohan Lal a similar dispute had arisen whether incorporation of a term on the bill which was not signed by the purchaser will constitute an arbitration agreement. A Single Judge of this Court had held as under:

5. The real question for decision in this case is whether there is an arbitration agreement between the parties as defined by Section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act. It is true that there is no explicit Clause in this case which provides in so many words that in the event of a dispute arising between the parties the same shall be referred to the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association, as was the case in the reported decision: C.M. Grover v. Kartar Singh Phool Singh . The term in that case printed on the bill was that the dispute will be settled through a person to be appointed by the Hindustani Mercantile Association. In this case, the term of the contract of sale says that the goods are sole subject to the rules and regulations of the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association.

6. The Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association has published a booklet containing its constitution and rules and regulations. The rules and regulations provide for arbitration. For example, Rule 36(5) provides that the Association shall hear and deter nine disputes arising between a member and member or non- member or any other person. The dispute, therefore, may be between a member and a non-member. The seller is a member of the Association. The buyer is not. So the Association can decide the dispute arising between these two parties. A dispute between member and non-member will be decided by the Association provided the parties to the transaction have agreed to be bound by the rules and regulations of the Association. Rule 47 provides that disputes will be settled by an arbitrator or a tribunal to be appointed by the Association and their decision shall be binding on the parties. The dispute cannot be taken straight away to courts. It must first be referred to the Association to arbitrate. Such is the binding force of the rules and regulations of the Association.

7. Once the parties to the bargain have agreed to be bound by the rules and regulations of the Mercantile Association, there is an incorporation of the arbitration Clause by reference in the bills of sales. The provisions regarding arbitration are all incorporated in these bills because the contract made by the parties is itself subject to the rules and regulations of the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association. The rules and regulations, therefore, became incorporated in the said contract. Two rules to which I have specifically referred amount to an arbitration agreement.

8. It is not necessary that there should be a formal agreement or that the terms should also be contained in one document. No particular form is obligatory. All that is necessary is that the parties should agree in writing to submit present or future differences to arbitration. Such an agreement may by found in correspondence consisting of a number of letters. Or, as here, in the rules and regulations of a body of merchants. See (Russell on Arbitration 19th ed. p.49). To constitute an arbitration agreement all that is required is that there must be an agreement that is to say, the parties must be ad-idem and that agreement must be in writing. It is not necessary that the written agreement must be signed. This is what the definition in Section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act says. Here we find there is a written agreement. On three bills there are signatures also though they are not an essential requirement. But the agreement to be bound by the rules and regulations of the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association is in writing. Therefore, the agreement arises by the incorporation of the rules and regulations which contain arbitration Clause and under which the dispute has to be referred to arbitration. In other words, the rules and regulations are annexed to the contract of sale by reason of the agreement of the parties. Russell says:

The agreement may arise by the incorporation of one document containing an arbitration Clause in another under which the dispute arises. (Russell on Arbitration 19th ed. p. 50)

9. The doctrine of incorporation by reference means that there are two documents between the relevant parties. It is inherent in cases of incorporation by reference that the parties are concerned not with one document alone but with at least two, one of which contains an arbitration Clause and the other which does not. By reference or implication the arbitration Clause is imported in the relevant contract. Because it is contained in a closely linked pre- existing document. The question whether the arbitration Clause is incorporated in the relevant contract between the relevant parties is always a question of construction. (Halsbury Laws of England 4th ed. para 522). In the present case the agreement between the parties incorporates the arbitration provisions which are set out in another document, namely, the rules and regulations published by the Mercantile Association.

10. The doctrine of incorporation by reference means merging of one thing in another so that the two form a single whole. Now what is the position here The rules and regulations of the Association are, as it were, bodily lifted from outside and written in ink in the contract of sale. The rules and regulations must be read verbatim into the bargain as though printed there in extenso.

11. As both the sale contract and the rules of the Association are in writing, there exists a valid arbitration agreement in terms of Section 2(a). The parties, notwithstanding the fact that the buyer is a non-member, have by their voluntary act of making their contract subject to the rules and regulations of the Association incorporated the arbitration Clause into their contract and thereby entered into an arbitration agreement. It is by reason of such voluntary act of the parties and not by independent force of the rules and regulations that the agreement has come into being and is therefore binding on the parties. (See Arthur and Co. v. S.K., and Co. per Mody and Kamat JJ).

21. Similarly in , Krishan Chander Ramesh Chander and Bros Vs Sohan Lal, the Respondent had purchased cloth on credit. In the bills in respect of the sale of the goods it was stipulated that the purchase was subject to the rules of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association, Delhi, which inter-alia, required that, in case of dispute, the same shall be decided by a person appointed by the Association as Arbitrator. The respondent failed to make payment in full and disputed his liability. The seller, therefore, applied to the Court for reference of disputes between the parties to the arbitration of the Association. Rule 36(5) of the aforesaid rules and regulations of the Association provided that the Association shall determine disputes arising between members inter se or between a member and non-member or any other person. Rule 47 provided that disputes shall be settled by an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Association and the decision of the Arbitrator shall be binding on the parties. It was held that the disputes between the parties must be referred to an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Association, relying upon 20 (1981) DLT 451 holding that as both the sale contract and rules of the Association are in writing, there exists a valid arbitration agreement in terms of Section 2(a). The parties notwithstanding the fact that the buyer is a non-member, have by their voluntary act of making their contract subject to the rules and regulations of the Association incorporated the arbitration Clause into their contract and thereby entered into an arbitration agreement.

22. Under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 an arbitration agreement should be in writing can it could be in a document signed by the parties or by exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunications. The Learned Arbitrator has considered the relative bills and receipts given by the respondent and duly signed by him. They have Delhi Hindustan Mercantile Association clause printed thereon which were exhibited as CW 1/1 to CW 1/13. The learned Arbitrator also relied on the stamp bearing the arbitration clause of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Regd.) Delhi and consequently he inferred that there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.

23. In Punjab Pen House v. Samrat Bicycle Ltd. , it was held that when the goods are supplied through a bill on certain terms and conditions duly agreed between the parties, there is no escape from the conclusion that it amounts to a written contract between the parties. The relied can be placed on AIR 1989 DELHI 169, Luda Ram Ved Parkash v. Maharani of India and Anr. where it was held that if the goods are sold subject to the rules and regulations of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Registered), then the arbitration clause appearing in the said rules and regulations will be deemed to be binding on the parties even though the purchaser is not a member of the said Association and such a clause bearing in the bills of the goods sold, even though bills are not signed by the purchaser, would mean that an arbitration agreement had been entered between the seller and the purchaser.

24. When the goods were sold by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioners and were accepted by the petitioners by executing a specific receipt, one of which is exhibited as CW1/9 stipulating that the receipt is subject to the terms and conditions of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Registered), then such a clause regarding the goods having sold in accordance with the rules and regulations of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Registered) will create a binding arbitration agreement between the parties despite the fact that the petitioners were not members of the said Association and even though the bills were not singed by the petitioners. The facts, in the present facts and circumstances, indisputably show that the goods were sold on the basis of the bills which contained printed clause that they were being sold subject to the rules and regulations of the said Association and rules and regulations of the said Association contained an arbitration clause and also detailed as to how the reference is to be made and that the arbitration agreement shall be legal and binding.

25. No infirmity or patent error can be inferred from the finding of the Arbitrator that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties. It is no more res integra that when the parties have chosen a forum to refer their disputes to be adjudicated not under a common law forum or under a statute by filing a suit, the court while exercising appellate power will not substitute its opinion with that of the arbitrator. If the clauses in the contract and the documents are open to two plausible interpretations, it is legitimate for the arbitrator to accept one or the other available interpretation and even if the Court may think that the other view is preferable, the Court will not or should not interfere with interpretation of the Arbitrator, until and unless the decision of the arbitrator is manifestly perverse or has been arrived at on the basis of wrong application of law. Distinction has been carved out between error within jurisdiction and error in excess of jurisdiction and that reasonableness of the reasons given by the arbitrator cannot be challenged and that appraisement of evidence by the arbitrator is never a matter which the court questions and considers.

26. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on AIR 1924 SIND 75, G.P. Gunnis and Co. v.. Amanmal Tulsidas contending that there was a patent error in the award in that case. It was held that an error of law apparent on the face of the award or the admission of evidence which goes to the root of the question will be a misconduct sufficient to entitle the opponent to set aside the award by the court. It was held that an award based on the erroneous construction of terms of contract will be liable to be set aside. The observation of the Full Bench are as under:-

An ordinary error whether in the admission of evidence and consequently in a finding of fact, or any ordinary error of law would not therefore necessarily vitiate the award. But equally on the other hand, an error of law patent on the fact of the award, or the admission of evidence, which goes to the root of the question has been held to be legal misconduct sufficient to entitle the opponent to have the award set aside by the court. Thus, an award based on an erroneous construction of the terms of the contract has been considered by the courts and upheld or set aside.

27. Law does not require that an arbitration agreement must be signed by the parties before the same could be considered binding. The Arbitrator has considered all these aspects and have reached a finding that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties. In Hindustan Iron Co. v. K. Shashikant and Co. the Apex Court held that the award of the Arbitrator ought not to be set aside for the reason that, in the opinion of the Court, the Arbitrator reached wrong conclusions or failed to appreciate the facts. This well settled proposition of law was reiterated in the decision of the Apex Court in Coimbatore District Podu Thozillar Sangam v. Balasubramania Foundary and Ors. where it has been opined that it is only an error of law and not a mistake of fact committed by the arbitrator which can be adjudicated in the application/objection before the Court. If there is no legal proposition either in the award or in any document annexed with the award which is erroneous and the alleged mistakes or alleged errors, are only mistakes of fact and if the award is made fairly, after giving adequate opportunity to the parties to place their grievances in the manner provided by the arbitration agreement, the award is not amenable to corrections of the Court. No interference is called for with the finding of the Arbitrator that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties.

28. The petitioners objected to the award on the ground that the counter claim of the petitioners has not been considered. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A.P.S. Ahuluwalia, very emphatically argued that the arbitrator declined to consider counter claims of the petitioners regarding the losses suffered by the petitioners on account of non-supply of balance quantity of cloth and the respondent No. 1 not supplying the cloth in terms of agreement between the parties by 15th November, 1997. The learned Counsel submitted that the learned arbitrator declined to adjudicate the counter claim on the ground that the counter claim cannot be taken up by a person who is not a member of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Registered).

29. The allegation of the petitioners is, however, refuted strongly by Mr.V.B. Arya, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. It was contended categorically that no such counter claim as alleged by the petitioners was raised nor it can be shown from any of the orders passed by the arbitral tribunal that the adjudication of the counter claim of the petitioners was declined on the ground that petitioners are not members of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Registered). Mr.Arya has rather drawn the attention to the reply filed by the petitioners. In the reply, no counter claim has been raised by the petitioners, rather petitioners only reserved their rights to raise the counter claims. The alleged counter claim of the petitioners in the reply raised before the arbitral tribunal is as under:-

12. That the respondents are now facing the tough position than that of the claimant/petitioner. The respondents had been persuading their buyer the fact of having not received the goods from the claimant/petitioner due to which the respondents had been asked by their buyer to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.60.00 (Rs.Sixty only) per meter against the remaining the poplin cloth to them. The respondents reserves their right to claim the compensation from the claimant/petitioner on this aspect of non delivery of the poplin cloth goods in time after having settled their matter with their buyers at the costs risks and responsibility of the claimant/petitioner

30. Consequently the objection of the petitioners that there was no adjudication of their counter claim on the ground that the petitioners were not the members of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association, is not correct as the petitioners did not raise the counter claim before the arbitrator for adjudication but merely reserved their rights to raise their counter claim. The award therefore, cannot be faulted on this ground.

31. The other objection of the petitioner is that the arbitrator has vested interest. In reply to the averment of the claimant filed by the petitioner, no such objection has been taken that the arbitrator had any vested interest. Merely because the respondent No. 2 is one of the panel members of the association does not make him having vested interest. The objection, therefore, is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances and the award cannot be set aside on this ground.

32. The petitioners have also challenged the finding of the Arbitrator on issue No. 4 whether the respondent No. 1 had received the goods from M/s. Ashima Textiles and deliberately not given to the petitioners. The arbitrator had held on the basis of acknowledgement of the goods issued by the petitioners on 19th September, 1997 that the petitioners had undertaken to make payment against delivery by post dated cheques for 20 days which they never complied and on that basis it was concluded that non-supply of goods by the respondent No. 1 to petitioners after 6th December, 1997 was justified due to blockage of the respondent No. 1 funds with the petitioners in respect of earlier supplies as a measure of precaution. The petitioners had agreed that goods would be received by them subject to issuance of 20 days post dated cheques on delivery. The petitioners failed to establish that in fact they had given the 20 days post- dated cheques on delivery of part of the goods of 70000 meters of cloths ordered by them. If that be so, then respondent No. 1 was justified in not delivering further goods after 6th December, 1997 as the petitioners had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of agreement agreed between the parties. If that be so, nothing wrong can be inferred from the finding of the Arbitrator. The findings of the arbitrator are not manifestly perverse or have been arrived at on the basis of wrong application of law. The court is not empowered to substitute its own opinion with that of the arbitrator. In any case, even the findings from the Court are also the same as that of the arbitrator and consequently no interference is called for. This objection of the petitioners is therefore rejected.

33. Another objection of the petitioners that the principles of natural justice were not complied with. This objection is also without any basis. The petitioners had filed the reply to the claim petition filed by the respondents. The petitioners were given opportunity to lead evidence and produce documents. The petitioners never complained that they were not given opportunity to file the reply or to substantiate the pleas taken by them. In the circumstances, the allegation that the principles of natural justice were not complied with, is contrary to record nor the award can be set aside on the said ground in the present facts and circumstances.

34. The objection of the petitioners that no reasons were given by the arbitrator is contrary to the award. The arbitrator framed the issues and has dealt with them separately and has given his reasons for drawing inferences in deciding the issues between the parties. What reasons are required depends upon the facts of each case. The sufficiency and quality of evidence is a matter for the arbitrator. The Court is not permitted to re-appraise the evidence and sit as a Court of appeal over the arbitrator's award. An arbitrator is not required to give a detailed judgment just like a Civil Court. What is expected of the arbitrator is simply this much that he must cull out the trend of his thought process. From the catena of cases decided by this Court as well as by the Apex Court what has to be seen by the court is whether the reasons given by the arbitrator are perverse or no reasonable person could have come to that view. Arbitrators are not Judges, they have not to write judgments as Judges do. If from the award, it can be inferred that the arbitrator has applied his mind, taken into consideration the relevant material for arriving at the finding, the award can not be interfered with on the ground that the award is without reasons. The inevitable inference in the facts and circumstances is that the award is based on the reasons and no perversity or apparent illegality is discernible so as to interfere with the award on any of the grounds as raised by the petitioners. The objection that the award does not disclose reasons is, therefore, not justifiable and can not be accepted for setting aside the award.

35. Considering the entire gamut of facts and circumstances, the inevitable inference is that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and the arbitrator dealt with the disputes which were contemplated and which were raised before him and the award does not contain decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submissions to the arbitrator. Since the arbitration was according to the procedure of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Registered), Delhi, a fortiori, in the present facts and circumstances, the composition of the arbitral tribunal was also in accordance with the agreement and arbitral award is not in conflict with public policy of India. No perversity or apparent illegality can be found with the award and it can not be interfered with or set aside on any of the grounds raised by the petitioners.

36. In the circumstances, the objections raised by the petitioners to the award dated 15th February, 2000 by the respondent No. 2 are dismissed. However considering the facts and circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.