RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these proceedings have been filed by M/s. Sri vishnu Cement Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered Corporate Office at 6-3-88. 3/1, hyderabad, P. B. No. 1535, Panjagutta, hyderabad. C. M. A. No. 456 of 2000 is filed by the same Company represented by its Vice- president (Tech.) Sri K. L. Narayana Rao and c. R. P. No. 878 of 2000 is filed by the same company represented by its Company Secretary Sri Ch. V. Jagannadha Rao. ( 2 ) IT appears that the appellant-company entered into a contract with the 1st respondent-company wherein the 1st respondent-company agreed to transport the cement manufactured by the appellant-company to different destinations by engaging number of trucks. Thereafter there was a dispute. Thus, as per the terms of the agreement, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed the award granting compensation of rs. 25,04,598/-with 12% interest. After the award is passed, the Company filed O. P. No. 98 of 1995 praying to set aside the award dated 20-4-1995. The contractor filed O. P. No. 41 of 1996 to make the said award rule of the court. The contractor also filed O. P. No. 42 of 1996 to set aside the award dated 20-4-1995 with regard to the interest awarded by the Arbitrator at the rate of 18% p. a and prayed for enhancement of interest from 18 to 24% p. a. on the total amount of award. All the proceedings were filed in the court of the Second Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Judge disposed of all the proceedings by a common order. O P. No. 98 of 1995 was dismissed and o. P- No. 41 of 1996 was allowed and the award dated 20-4-1995 was made rule of the court. Consequently O. P. No. 42 of 1996 was dismissed and the interest awarded by the Arbitrator was not modified from 18% to 24% p. a. on the amount awarded. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the common order passed in the above proceedings, the appellant i. e. , M/s. Sri Vishnu Cement Limited filed the aforesaid C. M. A. , and C. R. P. Therefore, we are now disposing of both the proceedings by a common judgment. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the common order passed in the above proceedings, the appellant i. e. , M/s. Sri Vishnu Cement Limited filed the aforesaid C. M. A. , and C. R. P. Therefore, we are now disposing of both the proceedings by a common judgment. ( 4 ) AS stated earlier, both the parties entered into a contract wherein the 1st respondent-company agreed to supply the trucks for transporting the cement manufactured by the appellant-company to different destinations. The contract period was initially for a period of one year commencing from 1-4-1990 to 31-3-1991,which is marked as Ex C-1. It further appears that there was a meeting between the parties and the minutes of the meeting were drawn up and they were brought on record as ex. C-4. "minutes of the Meeting held between the representatives of transport contracts for movement of cement to Jaggayyapet as and SVCL on 14-3-91 at hyderabad representing the Transport Contractors representing the SVCL mr. DH Satyanaiayana Raju Mr. Sambasiva Raju sst Mr. VS Narang President (O) srkt Mr. S. S. Varma Sales Officer (Uito) Mr. SL Narayan, Sr. Mgr. (Comml.) (1) The representatives of the Transporters were called for threadbare discussions, particularly in the context of their failure to sustain the movement of cement stocks from the works to the Rly. , siding SVCL made it clear that the performance on road movement is not upto the desired level and that movement of minimum 1000 tons per day, is most essential. (2) SVCL also impressed upon the transporters that due to delay in movement, the loading of rakes were being inordinately delayed leading to heavy demurrages and reduced rail dispatches. (3) The contractor s representative in turn, by way of clarification, highlighted the following factors which are effecting the despatches. (i) that the condition of the road from factory upto Mutyala and again from Jaggayyapet main road to siding is bad and not In motorablc condition, resulting in frequent break-downs/obstructions. (ii) That there is considerable delay in loading resulting in long detention. (iii) That settlement of bills are being inordinately delayed and hence unable to mobilize maximum number of trucks from outside sources (iv) That the recently imposed traffic restrictions on lorry movement between 8 a. m. to 10 p. m. has further restricted the movement and contractors are compelled to take circuitous route, which is 20 kms. (iii) That settlement of bills are being inordinately delayed and hence unable to mobilize maximum number of trucks from outside sources (iv) That the recently imposed traffic restrictions on lorry movement between 8 a. m. to 10 p. m. has further restricted the movement and contractors are compelled to take circuitous route, which is 20 kms. more than the existing route. The contractor requested for proportionate increase in the freight rate. After discussions the following were mutually agreed. (1) that contractor would ensure movement of minimum 1000 metric tones per day and accordingly increase the number of trucks to a minimum of 25 trucks per day as against the existing 14/15 trucks perday (2) that SVCL would, undertake (A) the road improvement work in the right earnest (B) complete construction of the godown at the for Transport Contractor b. H. Satyanarayana Raju sambasiva Raju siding before onset of monsoons (C) endeavour to settle the payments promptly and (D) one packer would be exclusively earmarked, for loading of trucks for jaggayyapet RS movement with a view to minimize the detention time. (3) that the maximum time required for rake loading has been identified as 20 hrs. maximum and to that extent the movement of stock, by the contractor, to be ensured. (4) Regarding revision in rate, SVCL offered to review, on representation with full justification. However, it was made clear that in any increase will be directly related to performance and in the event of the daily movement being less than a minimum of 800 T per day, a penalty for non-performance shall be imposed. (5) In conclusion both parties agreed that the common objective of maximizing movement to Rly. Siding is of importance and the no efforts would be spared in this regard. For Sri Vishnu Cement Ltd. V. S. Narang v. S. Varma s. L. Narayan ( 5 ) THEREAFTER the contract was extended for a further period of one year and the proceedings were drawn up, which is produced on record as Ex. R-7, which reads as under:"svcl:dgmm:44:91. 3219 01-04-1991 m/s. S. R. K. Transporters, 2-2-647/77/g/19, s. B. I. Colony, bagh Amberpet. Hyderabad. Dear Sirs, this has reference to our Work Order no. SVCL:gmm: 10998:90, dt. 6-12- 1990, regarding the transportation of our cement from factory at Jaggayyapet to Jaggayyapet Railway siding and transportation of coal from Jaggayyapet railway station to our factory. R-7, which reads as under:"svcl:dgmm:44:91. 3219 01-04-1991 m/s. S. R. K. Transporters, 2-2-647/77/g/19, s. B. I. Colony, bagh Amberpet. Hyderabad. Dear Sirs, this has reference to our Work Order no. SVCL:gmm: 10998:90, dt. 6-12- 1990, regarding the transportation of our cement from factory at Jaggayyapet to Jaggayyapet Railway siding and transportation of coal from Jaggayyapet railway station to our factory. We are pleased to inform you that the above work order has been extended for a further period of one year along with the Amendment Letter No. SVCL:dgmm:44:91,dt. 10-2-1991. Thanking you, yours faithfully, for Sri Vishnu Cement Ltd. (H. R. Pandey) dy. General Manager (Memo)"during the period of extension, there was a dispute between the parties and as per the agreement; the matter was referred to an Arbitrator. As per order in O. P. No. 220/92 on the file of the First Additional Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad, Sri M. Satyanarayana Murty was appointed as sole Arbitrator. ( 6 ) DURING the Arbitration proceedings, the Transport Company filed their claim petitions. The first claim petition was with regard to idle charges for 10 trucks engaged and it was a loss as those trucks services could not be engaged. Therefore, the loss was claimed at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per truck per month for 10 trucks amounting to Rs. two lakhs. Then further sub-claim in claim No. 1 that idle charges for 10 trucks for the period from 1-4-1991 to 30-6-1991 at Rs. 20,000/- per month per truck, which comes to Rs. Six lakhs. Thus, a total amount of Rs. Eight lakhs was claimed under that head. Claim No. 2 was non-supply of agreed quantity for transportation resulting in loss of expected profits in extended period commencing from 1-4-1991 to 30-10-1991, which comes to Rs. 4,50,598/ -. The third claim was loss of profits for the period from 1-11-1991 to 31-3-1992. The total claim under 3rd head was Rs. 4,05,000. Claim No. 4 was in respect of loss in advances on the vehicles engaged and idle charges from 1-11-1991 to 15-12-1991. ( 7 ) THE idle charges of 25 trucks for the period from 1-4-1991 to 30-6-1991 at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month per truck. The total claim was Rs. 15,00,000/ -. Similarly for the period from 1-11-1991 to 15-12-1991 for 45 days for 15 trucks at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per truck for 45 days. ( 7 ) THE idle charges of 25 trucks for the period from 1-4-1991 to 30-6-1991 at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month per truck. The total claim was Rs. 15,00,000/ -. Similarly for the period from 1-11-1991 to 15-12-1991 for 45 days for 15 trucks at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per truck for 45 days. The total claim was rs. 4,50,000/ -. ( 8 ) PARTIES to the litigation led evidence and the impugned award came to be passed. It is not necessary for us to go into the detailed evidence led by the parties because the learned counsel for the appellant in the C. M. A. and the petitioner in C. R. P. Mr. S. Ravi did not dispute regarding the award passed by the arbitrator on merits. The only submission made by the learned counsel Mr. S. Ravi that the minutes drawn which is at Ex. C-4 was in respect of the earlier period and not in respect of the subsequent period. The learned counsel mr. S. Ravi further submitted that in the minutes drawn at Ex. C-4 were agreed by the appellant-company that they would provide minimum 1000 tonnes per day for transportation by the trucks of the first respondent herein. In the original agreement Ex. C-1,, the quantity to be supplied was not agreed upon when the agreement was extended as per Ex. R-7. Only the first agreement comes into force without ex. C-4 and therefore it was submitted by the learned counsel Mr. S. Ravi that in the second agreement the appellant-company did not agree to supply the minimum quantity of cement for transportation and therefore it was contended by the learned counsel that the award passed by the Arbitrator has to be set aside. ( 9 ) NOW the only question before us for consideration is as to whether Ex. C-4 is a part of Ex. C-1 arid whether Ex. R-7 the letter of extension includes the earlier agreements exs. C-1 and C-4 ( 10 ) TO ascertain the aforesaid fact, it is necessary to know what words are used in ex. R-7. The relevant portion is extracted as under:"we are pleased to inform you that the above work order has been extended for a further period of one year along with the Amendment Letter no. SVCL:. DGMM:44:91, dt. 10-2-1991. "there is one more document Ex. R-7. The relevant portion is extracted as under:"we are pleased to inform you that the above work order has been extended for a further period of one year along with the Amendment Letter no. SVCL:. DGMM:44:91, dt. 10-2-1991. "there is one more document Ex. R-6 dated 6- 12-1990 which contains:". . . . . OTHER terms and conditions of our work order No. SVCLFIN 81:2346:88 dated 10-4-90 will remain unchanged. " ( 11 ) IT is pertinent to note that when the agreement Ex. C-1 was executed between the parties, some clarification was required for the purpose of carrying out the. work as per the contract and therefore both the parties were present and after due discussions and deliberations, the document ex. C-4 came into existence. If there was any ambiguity in the contract Ex. C-1, it was not necessary to write down the minutes of the meeting as per Ex. C-4 and therefore we have to hold that Ex. C-4 is part of Ex. C-1 and when for the further period the contract was extended bv a-letter Ex. R-7, it goes without saying that whatever was agreed between the parties in Ex. C-1 as well as in ex. C-4 has to be understood as a valid contract between the parties and their intention is expressed in clear words by Ex. R-7 and R-6 and therefore, we have to hold that the award passed by the arbitrator is just and proper. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein relied upon many rulings such as U. P. Hotels v. U. P. State Electricity Board; puri Construction (P) Ltd. v. Union of India; M/s. Sndershan Trading Company v. Gout, of Kerala; Gnjarat Water Supply and sewerage Board v Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. and another; B. V. Radha Krishna v. Sponge Iron India Ltd. ; H. P. State Electricity Board v. R. J. Shah and Company; pradeep Port Trust v. Unique Builders; Indu engineering and Textiles Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority and Maharashtra State electricity Board v Sterilite Industries (India) and another. ( 13 ) WE have gone through the said rulings. We have no hesitation in accepting the said rulings laid down by the Supreme Court. But we are not inclined to hold that these rulings may not come to the help of the first respondent herein for the reason that the learned counsel Mr. ( 13 ) WE have gone through the said rulings. We have no hesitation in accepting the said rulings laid down by the Supreme Court. But we are not inclined to hold that these rulings may not come to the help of the first respondent herein for the reason that the learned counsel Mr. S. Ravi appearing for the appellant herein never prayed to set aside the award on the ground of mala fide on the part of the arbitrator. As stated earlier, the only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant herein as to whether Ex. C-4 is a part and parcel of ex. C-1. We have answered the said issue in the affirmative for assigning the reasons. ( 14 ) UNDER such circumstances, we hold that the appeal and the revision filed by M/s. Vishnu Cement Company are devoid of any merit and therefore CM. A. and C. R. P. are dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.