A. CHAKRABARTI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the Judgment and order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Facts relevant, as appear from the records, are that respondent issued tender inviting offer for entering into yearly rate contract for the supply of common (industrial grade) salt by railway rakes as per specifications for its Nagaon and Chcher Paper Mills in Assam. The appellant made an offer at the rate of Rs. 625/- per metric ton which was accepted by the respondent and rate contract dated 13th May, 1999 was entered into for supply of 50,000 metric tones of common (industrial grade)salt at the said rate of Rs. 625/- per metric ton duly packed in new hdpe bags. ( 2 ) IN terms of the said contract, the appellant from time to time sold and delivered to the respondent 2332. 800 metric tones. 2331. 750 metric tones and 2351. 175 metric tones of common (industrial grade)salt aggregating to 7015. 725 metric tones by despatching the same by rail raising three invoices aggregating to Rs. 43,84,829/ -. ( 3 ) AT the request of the respondent as a very special case the appellant also sold and delivered to the respondent 2219 metric tones of common (industrial grade) salt at the rate of Rs. 411/- per metric ton by despatching the same by rail to Panchamgram and raised invoice for Rs. 9,12. 009/ -. ( 4 ) ALTHOUGH, from time to time, the respondent made payment of a total sum of Rs. 37,90,739/- to the appellant, in spite of repeated requests and demands respondent failed to pay the balance sum of rs. 15,06,099/- which was lying due since 7th August, 2000 on account of alleged loss in transit. On the aforesaid claim of the principal amount along with interest the appellant referred the disputes to the arbitration of Indian Council of Arbitration which ultimately ended with passing of an award of Rs. 16,14,010/- with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the counter claim till the date of the award dated 2nd September, 2002 on account of reimbursement of excess freight paid by the respondent. 16,14,010/- with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the counter claim till the date of the award dated 2nd September, 2002 on account of reimbursement of excess freight paid by the respondent. ( 5 ) WHEN the said award was served on the appellant on 16th september, 2002 being aggrieved the appellant filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and when the same was dismissed by the impugned Judgment dated April 24, 2003, present appeal was filed. ( 6 ) HEARD Mr. Jishnu Saha, learned counsel for the appellant and mr. Ajay Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent. ( 7 ) IN the award alter considering the facts involved, pleadings and documents, four questions were found to have arisen for consideration and those are set out hereinbelow:"a) Whether in terms of the contract the Claimant's obligation ended with the loading of the goods on rail and thereafter the risk in respect thereof passed to the Respondent ? b) Whether the 3rd consignment can be said to have been despatched by the Claimant after the expiry of the rate contract and whether the Claimant is entitled to the agreed contractual rate of Rs. 625/- per metric ton in respect of the same ? c) Whether the Respondent can recover from the Claimant any amount allegedly paid excess towards freight ? d) Whether the Respondent can recover any amount from the Claimant on account of delay in supply of one rake of meterials ?" ( 8 ) THE fourth issue was decided in favour of the appellant, first and third issues were held in favour of the respondent, and the second issue though was held in favour of the respondent but it was sent back on remand by the impugned Judgment. ( 9 ) FOR considering the first issue as to whether the claimant's obligation ended with loading of the goods on rail and thereafter risk in respect thereof passed to the respondent, the relevant clause in the contract is 2. 0 which is as follows :"2. 0 Price Basic : the above prices are on 'for' Despatching Station basis inclusive of packing and forwarding charges duly packed in new hdpe bags. No Taxes and Duties are applicable at present. 0 which is as follows :"2. 0 Price Basic : the above prices are on 'for' Despatching Station basis inclusive of packing and forwarding charges duly packed in new hdpe bags. No Taxes and Duties are applicable at present. Clause 11 of the said contract also requires consideration and therefore the same is also set out hereinbelow: 11. 0 Transit Insurance: 11. 1 Transit Insurance shall be covered under Open General policy of Mills as per details given herunder: nagaon Paper Mill open Policy No. 130/03/21/26/16/00001/99 with United India insurance Co. Ltd. Main Road, Jagi Road, Assam - 782410. Cacher Paper Mill open Policy No. 130509/21/23/0028/99 with United India insurance Co. Ltd. , New Market Panchgram, Assam - 788802. 11. 2 Immediately after despatch of materials vendor should inform the under writers for Insurance Coverage giving the despatch details, material value etc. " ( 10 ) IT is the contention of the appellant that in view of nature of contract, the clause 2 of the said contract shows that agreement was on 'for' and therefore, the liability of the contractor came to an end on loading of the articles. It is argued that clause 11 of the said contract was not taken into consideration by the learned Judge which shows that transit insurance was provided covering under Open General Policy of mills and immediately after despatch of material vendor should inform the under writers for insurance coverage giving despatch details, materials value etc. and it is argued that these aspects show conclusively that upon loading the risk passed to the respondent and that is why insurance coverage was to be taken by it and not by the contractor/appellant. In this respect contention was made on section 34 (2) (iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as also the judgment in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Saw Pipes Ltd. reported in 2003 (5) SCC 705 . ( 11 ) THE letter dated 27th February, 2001 issued on behalf of the chief Claims Officer, N. F. Railway, Maligaon providing for damages or deficiencies in case of Wagon load consignment booked under said two contains 'rr' to show that it indicates liability in respect of such a transaction on 'for' contract. ( 11 ) THE letter dated 27th February, 2001 issued on behalf of the chief Claims Officer, N. F. Railway, Maligaon providing for damages or deficiencies in case of Wagon load consignment booked under said two contains 'rr' to show that it indicates liability in respect of such a transaction on 'for' contract. ( 12 ) REFERENCE was also made to sections 65 and 74 of the Railways act and the Judgment in the matter of Messrs David Sassoon and Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1926 Sind 246, Sri Rama Purchase and Sale Society Ltd. v. State of Madras reported in AIR 1959 AP 36 , Kanshi Ram v. Mul Chand bhagwan Das reported in AIR 1930 Lahore 469, Kahn and Kahn v. Premsukh reported in AIR 1931 Lahore 260 and M/s. Multanmal chempalal, Bellary v. M/s. C. P. Shah and Co. , Bombay reported in AIR 1970 Mysore 106. ( 13 ) WITH regard to objection regarding intervention of the Court when the award is not reasoned, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that Judgment in the cases of College of Vocational Studies v. S. S. Jaitely reported in AIR 1987 Delhi 134, Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd. v. Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. reported in 1993 (2)SCC 106 and Soorajmull Nagarmull v. M/s. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. reported in AIR 2001 Cal 227 explained what is unreasoned award. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant further contended that respondent is not entitled to recover the alleged excess freight paid by the respondent as a short supply was made and the freight paid was for the entire consignment and it is argued that in view of above contentions the said finding of the learned Judge in the impugned judgment also requires intervention. ( 15 ) MR. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent contended that provisions of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, does not cover the grounds taken by the appellant in the application under section 34 and therefore, appellant is not entitled to any relief on such application. ( 15 ) MR. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent contended that provisions of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, does not cover the grounds taken by the appellant in the application under section 34 and therefore, appellant is not entitled to any relief on such application. ( 16 ) WITH regard to first issue relating to liability under 'for' contract, it is contended that the provisions of the contract show that acceptance of the goods will be only on analysis and therelore, it can be concluded therefrom that parties intended that neither title nor the risk passed on mere loading of the articles. Reference was also made to clause 6 of the contract to contend that same shows that parties intended to enter into an arrangement which does not support the contentions of the appellant. Pleadings in this connection were also referred to. ( 17 ) IN respect of 'for' contract, learned counsel points out that clause 2 of the contract only mentions 'for' and thereforee entire contract was not on 'for' basis as contended by the appellant. ( 18 ) MR. Chatterjee, relied on the Judgment in the case of Girija prasad v. National Coal Co. reported in AIR 1949 Cal 472 and Union of india v. West Punjab Factories Limited reported in AIR 1965 SC 395 in support of his contention that property in the goods when transferred from seller to buyer under such commercial contract. ( 19 ) MR. Chatterjee futher relied on the Judgment in the case of commissioner of Sales Tax, Eastern Division v. Husenali Adanji and Co. , reported in AIR 1959 SC 887 in respect of above contention. ( 20 ) WITH regard to the award impugned by the appellant, reliance was placed on the notes of argument filed on behalf of the appellant before the learned Arbitrator and it was argued by the respondent that said contention is not acceptable. ( 21 ) WITH regard to contention of the appellant on the basis of provision of insurance as contained in the contract, it has been argued by Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that no issue has been raised on behalf of the either before the learned Arbitrator or before the Trial Court and therefore, such contentions cannot be allowed to be raised. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that no issue has been raised on behalf of the either before the learned Arbitrator or before the Trial Court and therefore, such contentions cannot be allowed to be raised. ( 22 ) REFERENCE was made to the Judgment of Rangoon High Court in the case of Gnana Simdaram v. Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 134 IC 221 in support of the contention that even in case of speaking award the view expressed therein is a plausible one, the Court dealing with an application under section 34 should not interfere with such finding. ( 23 ) FURTHER reliance was placed on the Judgment in the case of food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal reported in AIR 1989 sc 1203 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Allied Constructions Company reported in 2003 (7) SCC 396 . It is contended that reasonableness of learned Arbitrator's view cannot be decided by the Court dealing with an application under section 34. ( 24 ) FURTHER reliance was placed on the Judgment in the case of buendra Nath Srivastava v. Mayank Srivastava reported in 1994 (6) SCC 117 and Union of India v. M/s. S. N. Kanungo reported in 2001 (2) CLT 1. Further reference was made case Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes reported in (2003) 5 SCC 705 . ( 25 ) WITH regard to the contention of railway receipts, learned counsel for the respondent explained the circumstances and effect of such railway receipts to argue that railway assumes no liability in case of issuance of such railway receipt and in support thereof reliance was placed on the Judgment in the case of Hari Sao v. State of Bihar. 1969 (3) SCC 107 . ( 26 ) WITH regard to remand of the matter in respect of issue No. 2, mr. Chatterjee contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case there was no justification for sending the matter back and the findings in favour of the respondent arrived at by the learned Arbitrator ought to have been maintained and reliance was placed on the provisions contained in order 41 rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to show scope of the respondent to argue such matter in an appeal preferred by the appellant. ( 27 ) WITH regard to interest, reliance was placed on the provisions contained in section 31 (7) and it is stated that respondent is entitled to statutory rate of interest and same cannot be disputed. ( 28 ) UPON considering the contentions of the respective parties and the materials on record as also the law cited in course of hearing, we find that the learned Arbitrator considered four issues raised in course of arbitration hearing. First of such four issues, as quoted hereinabove, related to the question whether claimant's obligation ended with loading of the goods on rail and thereafter the risk in respect thereof passed to the respondent. Basis of such contention is clause 2 of the contract referring to the basic price as on 'for' despatching station. But a perusal of the entire contract shows that expression 'for' has been used only in the context of the price and not in other clauses. Therefore, said clause 2 does not indicate the shifting of the risk or of property in the goods on their loading on rail. Moreover, Judgments cited in course of hearing show clearly point of time when property in the goods is transferred in case of a sale. In the present case agreement clearly provided that consigned goods will be accepted at the destination only after inspection. This shows conclusively that property in the goods could not be taken as transferred only on loading. ( 29 ) INSURANCE of the goods, under the agreement, was the responsibility of the consignor. But the provision for insurance as contained in clause 11 of the agreement does not indicate anything as to the shifting of risk on loading. ( 30 ) THE railway receipt admittedly was having "said to contain" endorsement. This endorsement shows clearly that the railway did not certify the quantity or description of the goods loaded and recorded whatever was stated by the vendor while loading. Therefore, such railway receipt does not show either transfer of property or of risk on loading. ( 31 ) IN view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that materials on record do not show that claimant's obligation ended with loading of the goods on railway or the risk passed to the respondent on such loading. Therefore, such railway receipt does not show either transfer of property or of risk on loading. ( 31 ) IN view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that materials on record do not show that claimant's obligation ended with loading of the goods on railway or the risk passed to the respondent on such loading. Therefore, the findings of the learned Arbitrator and the learned judge in the impugned Judgment in this respect does not require any interference. ( 32 ) WITH regard to the second issue of the four issues raised and considered in the award was as to whether the third consignment can be said to have been despatched by the claimant after expiry of the rate contract and whether the claimant is entitled to the agreed contractual rate of Rs. 625/- per M. T. The learned Arbitrator in the award considered the issue and came to a finding that rate in the third consignment should be equal to the fourth consignment. In the impugned Judgment the learned single Judge came to a conclusion that finding of the learned Arbitrator in this respect does not contain any reason and therefore, the matter was remitted back to the learned arbitrator. We have perused the award which was challenged before the learned single Judge. In the award itself the said aspect was considered. We find that the learned Arbitrator considered the relevant dates of placing the order, payment of freight and sending the goods. The explanation of the claimant for delay in sending the goods was also noted. The learned Arbitrator considered the materials on record and did not find the materials relied on by the claimant as acceptable whereas he found acceptable the certificate produced on behalf of the respondent showing the date of despatch and the other supporting materials wherefrom the conclusion was reached that despatch was made after the expiry of the contract period. The learned Arbitrator considered further that at that point of time ruling price per Metric ton was Rs. 411/- which was the new rate contract price and which was also price of the fourth consignment. It was held by the learned arbitrator that in view of the above material price of the third consignment was found to be Rs. 411/- per metric ton. 411/- which was the new rate contract price and which was also price of the fourth consignment. It was held by the learned arbitrator that in view of the above material price of the third consignment was found to be Rs. 411/- per metric ton. Therefore, we find that the findings of the learned Arbitrator as regards the said issue was supported by certain reason which is plausible one and in such circumstances we do not find that there is any need to interfere with the same under section 34 of the Act of 1996. ( 33 ) IN this connection, contention of the appellant is that the respondent having not preferred any appeal against impugned judgment, is not entitled to argue the said issue in the above matter and on behalf of the respondent reliance was placed on the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure in support of the argument that respondent is also entitled to challenge the findings against it in an appeal preferred by the appellant. This law has been also discussed in the case of Panna Lal v. State of Bombay, reported in air 1963 SC 1516 . ( 34 ) IN view of the above law we also hold that respondent is entitled to challenge the Judgment in the appeal filed by the appellant against the other portion of the Judgment and therefore, allowing the respondent to argue the same in the above matter, we are unable to agree with the learned Judge that the finding on the second issue in the award is supported by no reason and in such circumstances, we do not hold that the said finding of the learned Arbitrator requires an interference or to be remitted. The impugned Judgment is required to be modified to the above extent. ( 35 ) WITH regard to the third issue considered by the learned Arbitrator in his award, we find that same related to recovery of excess freight paid. Considering the materials on record, the learned Arbitrator came to a finding that respondent is entitled to such refund and allowed the counter claim of the respondent to that extent. Challenge by appellant on this issue is on the ground Nos. XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII and XIX. Considering the materials on record, the learned Arbitrator came to a finding that respondent is entitled to such refund and allowed the counter claim of the respondent to that extent. Challenge by appellant on this issue is on the ground Nos. XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII and XIX. Considering the materials on record, we find the learned Arbitrator considered the materials on record and noted the fact that the correspondences do not show that claimant ever disputed the quantum of short receipt of goods reported from time to time by the respondent. It was also noticed by the learned Arbitrator that the endeavour of the parties was to find out how and in what matter such loss of goods in transit resulting in short delivery could be plugged. Documents were considered by the learned Arbitrator to find that claimant virtually admitted the factum of short delivery of goods while giving suggestions for minimising or avoiding such shortage. ( 36 ) THE learned arbitrator further considered why the contention of the claimant in this respect is not acceptable. We have also taken into consideration the railway receipt having the endorsement "said to contain" wherefrom it is apparent that railway did not certify the quantity of the goods loaded. The claimant totally failed to prove the actual quantity loaded or that there was no shortage in transit. In such circumstances, from such reasons given by the learned arbitrator we do not find that reasons are totally perverse or are not plausible justifying any interference under section 34. Therefore, the findings of the learned arbitrator and of the learned Judge in the impugned judgment in this respect also do not require any interference. ( 37 ) WITH regard to the counter claim regarding respondent's claim for recovery of any amount from the claimant on account of delay in supply of one take of materials, has not been found by the learned arbitrator as acceptable and this finding of the learned Arbitrator has also not been interferred with under section 34 of the 1996 Act and therefore, this aspect is not required to be considered to us in absence of any challenge by the respondent at any earlier stage. ( 38 ) WITH regard to grant of interest the contention fo the appellant is as regards of rate of interest also absence of any reason by the learned arbitrator in awarding such interest. ( 38 ) WITH regard to grant of interest the contention fo the appellant is as regards of rate of interest also absence of any reason by the learned arbitrator in awarding such interest. In this connection law appears to be contained in sectin 31 (7) of the Act of 1996. On perusal of the said provision, it is apparent that grant of interest and the rate of interest are both provided therein and the award is in conformatin thereof. ( 39 ) IN above view of the matter, when rate of interest has been provided in the statute itself and the principle is also available that on delayed payment such award could be passed, we do not find any ground for interference therewith. In this respect the finding of the learned judge does not appear to be acceptable by us in view of above findings. Therefore, we hold that there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the learned Arbitrator and the impugned Judgment is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of as indicated hereinabove. Appeal disposed of.