P. D. MULYE, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree D/-16-4-1981 passed by the District Judge, Ujjain, in C. S. No. 6-B of 1980 which arose out of the proceedings under the provisions of the Arbitration Act. ( 2 ) THE short facts, giving rise to this appeal may be stated, in brief, thus: The appellant who is a contractor was engaged for handling and transport of goods of the respondent-Corporation which has a factory at Ujjain by name "food Corp. Nutrition Products. " Ground nut pods and kernels etc. are processed in this factory. Ground-nut pods etc. were brought to the factory premises, stored at different godowns and then taken to the factory for being processed. Initially the contractor worked for the factory from February, 1972 to 15-7-73 on an ad hoc basis but then tenders were called and the contractor was appointed under these terms and worked as such till 16-5-77. ( 3 ) THERE was a dispute about the payment and Shri S. V. H. Pagare, retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as the sole arbitrator through the intervention of the Court who by his award D/-31-3-80 found that the appellant-claimant is entitled to recover Rs. 1,09,648. 54 p. from the respondent though he rejected the other claim of Rs. 10,760. 45 p. and Rs. 38,527. 98 p. The counter-claim for Rs. 51,839. 56 p. filed by the respondent was also dismissed on the ground that the respondent had for a long period continued to make this payment to the appellant which was neither under mistake nor coercion but that it was a voluntary payment though the plea of the respondent was only that the said payment was unjustified. They did not plead their case for this amount under S. 72, Contract Act. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved with the award, which was filed by the Arbitrator in the Court the respondent submitted their objections under S. 30, Arbitration Act, before the District Judge, Ujjain, relating to the counter-claim of Rs. 51,839. 56. p. which was rejected by the Arbitrator though the appellant did not file any objections to the same as, it appears, he was satisfied that the award on the basis of which a decree in terms thereof was to be passed to make it a rule of the Court. 51,839. 56. p. which was rejected by the Arbitrator though the appellant did not file any objections to the same as, it appears, he was satisfied that the award on the basis of which a decree in terms thereof was to be passed to make it a rule of the Court. The learned District Judge by the impugned judgment, relying on the decisions reported in AIR 1923 PC 66, AIR 1963 SC 1685 , AIR 1967 SC 1030 , AIR 1971 SC 696 , 1974 MPLJ 191 , 1974 MPLJ 514 and 1965 MPLJ 294 did not dispute with the proposition of law that he was not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Arbitrator and has limited powers to set it aside only if the objection strictly falls within the ambit of S. 30, Arbitration Act. However, he allowed the objection of the respondent regarding the amount of Rs. 51,839. 56 p. and after deducting this amount passed a decree in favour of the appellant for'rs. 57,809. 00 only. Hence this appeal. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY the facts of this case are not in dispute. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has filed this appeal against the claim, which is rejected, he concentrated his submissions only regarding the amount of Rs. 51,839. 56 p. which was claimed by the respondent by way of counter-claim before the Arbitrator. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent who had submitted their statement before the Arbitrator had not come with any such specific case that the aforesaid payment of Rs. 51,839. 56 p. for the period 13-5-72 to 18-6-76 was made under mistake or coercion but on the contrary they have come with a specific case that the said payment was unjustified as the aforesaid payment was made to the appellant on account of the wrong interpretation of the clause in the agreement according to which the appellant was to be paid. He, therefore, submitted that when the Arbitrator was the sole and final judge of all questions both of law and fact, the learned lower Court has committed an error in interfering with the award as if it was deciding the case in an appeal. He, therefore, submitted that when the Arbitrator was the sole and final judge of all questions both of law and fact, the learned lower Court has committed an error in interfering with the award as if it was deciding the case in an appeal. He, therefore, submitted that even under S. 15 or S. 16, Arbitration Act the Arbitrator had limited powers to set aside or modify the award and the scope of objections to the award being restricted as contemplated by S. 30 Arbitration Act the present case does not fall within the exceptions to any of those provisions. He, therefore, submitted that merely because according to the respondent they had made the aforesaid payment because of their wrong interpretation of the term of the contract would not mean that the payment was also unjustified as has been the case of the respondent because they have made voluntary payment of this amount for a pretty long time and they could not be allowed to urge now that this was a payment made under mistake which they discovered only subsequently when the question of payment for the subsequent period arose. He, therefore, submitted that in absence of any such case having been set up by the respondent that the aforesaid payment was made under some mistake or coercion, the provisions of S. 72, Contract Act, are not at all attracted which nowhere refers to any unjustified payment and in support of his submission he placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1970 SC 1490 (Union of India v. Jal Rustomji Modi) and AIR 1976 SC 2243 (Dhanyalakshmi Rice Mills v. Commr of Civil Supplies ). ( 6 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the arbitrator in his award has also found that the interpretation put forth by the respondent to the clause under which the payment was to be made to the appellant was correct as the payment was to be made for one service and not for two services. He, therefore, submitted that in this situation the learned arbitration was not justified in rejecting the counter-claim of the respondent and consequently the learned lower Court has rightly reduced this amount from the total amount awarded by the arbitrator. He also submitted that in fact for the subsequent period the appellant had also put up a claim of Rs. 38,527. He, therefore, submitted that in this situation the learned arbitration was not justified in rejecting the counter-claim of the respondent and consequently the learned lower Court has rightly reduced this amount from the total amount awarded by the arbitrator. He also submitted that in fact for the subsequent period the appellant had also put up a claim of Rs. 38,527. 98 p. for two services (1) carrying the goods from godown for stacking near the feeder and (2) feeding the bags into the feeder. Thus for each service the appellant had put up his claim under item No. (2) of the schedule of rate, which is as follows:"removing the bags of ground-nut pods/ kernels/ cakes/ flour or any other commodity from the stocks in the godown or at any other place inside the factory premises and stacking them in any other or the same godown. "a single rate is provided for this service. He, therefore, submitted that as this claim for Rs. 38,527. 98 p. has been found by the arbitrator to be not tenable in view of his interpretation also, according to which the said clause provides for a single operation and not two distinct and separate operations, the learned District Judge cannot be said to have committed any error in upholding the objections of the respondent regarding the counter claim of Rs. 51,839. 56 p. He, therefore, urged that when for the subsequent period the arbitrator negatived the claim of the appellant by interpreting the said clause under which the earlier payment from time to time was made to the tune of Rs. 51,839, 56 p. obviously the arbitrator was wrong in dismissing the Counter claim though apparently was convinced that in view of the correct interpretation of the said clause such a payment should not have been made, though he negatived it on the ground that no case of mistake or coercion is made out He, therefore, submitted that the learned lower Court cannot be said to have committed an error of law in transgressing the powers which he has under the provisions of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award or any term thereof. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and after going through the record as also the authorities cited, we are of opinion that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant having substantial force must be accepted. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and after going through the record as also the authorities cited, we are of opinion that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant having substantial force must be accepted. Admittedly it is not the case of the respondent that the aforesaid payment of Rs. 51,839. 56 p. was made under any mistake or coercion. Therefore, it is not open to them to contend that because the payment was unjustified the learned lower Court could interfere in the finding given by the arbitrator as admittedly and undisputedly it was a voluntary payment made by the respondent from time to time, though the learned counsel for the respondent had urged that it is only when subsequently they discovered the mistake that the question of putting up a counterclaim arose. But as we are concerned only with the payment which was already made voluntarily by the respondent and which claim has been upheld by the Arbitrator and in our opinion rightly, the learned lower Court could not interfere with the award as if it was deciding an appeal under the powers of the appellate jurisdiction because the powers under S. 30, Arbitration Act, and the scope thereof is limited. ( 8 ) IN the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, which has upheld the objection of the respondent and has modified the award reducing the claim to the tune of Rs. 51,839. 65 p. is set aside and a decree in favour of the appellant for Rs. 1,09,648. 54 p. is passed against the respondent as per the award. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their respective costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed. .