ORDER Mishra,. J. -- 1. This appeal has been preferred by M.P. Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'LUN') aggrieved by an order dated 20th August, 1993 passed by District Judge, Bhopal, in RCS No. 68-A/93 by which award dated 31.7. 1 991 has been made rule of the Court. 2. M/s. Digvijay Industries Pvt. Ltd. was a member of M.P. Steel Re-rolling Mills Association, Indore. The said association requested the LUN to import re-rollable steel scrap and to distribute amongst the members of association on payment of reasonable commission. On 12.5.1981 M/s. Digvijay Industries Pvt. Ltd. entered into an agreement with LUN for supply of re-rollable steel scrap and deposited security of Rs. 3 lacs on 25.2.1981. Thereafter LUN entered into an agreement (Ex. D-4) dated 29.5.1981 with Stena Metal Ltd. London. Thereafter M/s. Digvijay Industries Pvt. Ltd. deposited a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- on 7.8.1981 for supply of re-rollable steel scrap. It appears that some material was supplied to the respondent M/s. Digvijay Industries Pvt. Ltd. in between 26.10.1981 to 3.11.1981. A notice (Ex. P-5) was given to LUN on 11.12.1981 that material supplied was not in conformity, it was informed not to make further despatches. To the similar effect another notice (Ex. P-6) was given on 21.12.1981, thereafter as dispute arose between the parties, the arbitrator was appointed. An award was passed on 31.7.1991 directing the refund of amount of security and the amount deposited by the appellant along with interest at the rate 01'9% per annum till payment. Pendente lite interest was not awarded. An objection was filed under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award by LUN. At the same time M/s. Digvijay Industries Pvt. Ltd. prayed that pendente lite interest ought to have been awarded by arbitrator. 3. It was submitted by the LUN in the objections that the association on behalf of its members approached the defendant to act as its agent to invest money and arrange for import of scrap to Bombay and to transport it from Bombay to the said 10 mills. One of the officer of LUN and one person of the association inspected the scrap to be supplied by the seller of the association and after such inspection, when it was found to be of the required quality, the same was loaded in a ship for being carried to Bombay. One of the officer of LUN and one person of the association inspected the scrap to be supplied by the seller of the association and after such inspection, when it was found to be of the required quality, the same was loaded in a ship for being carried to Bombay. After the ship arrived at Bombay, the contents thereof were unloaded and sent to various members/purchasers, hence, LUN was not responsible. Plaintiff accepted the first consignment and later on refused to accept the remaining quantity on a false pretext of the goods not being re-rollabel scrap. The plaintiff filed a suit against State Bank of Indore for ' restraining the Bank from paying amount to the defendant. Injunction was refused. Thereafter dispute was submitted to the arbitrator. Arbitrator erred in law in passing the award, as he has committed misconduct, proper issues were not framed, fair procedure was not adopted, decision rendered was not proper, issue No.1 was bad in law, other issues should have been decided in favour of LUN; it could not be said that material was not reroll able steel scrap. There is no discussion of the evidence. Material documents have been ignored, hence, prayer was made to set aside the award. 4. The respondent submitted that scrap supplied was not re-rollable. On 14.10.1981 LUN was informed about the rejection of material. On 28.10.1981 telephonic communication of rejection was also made. M/s. Digvijay Industries Pvt. Ltd. also wrote a letter (Ex. D-5) on 3.11.1981 to LUN about the rejection of the goods. As it was not re-rollable steel scrap, LUN informed on 1.12.1981 that material was stored at Indore and on 17.9.1981 LUN sent telex letters (Ex. D-2 and D-4) to Stena Metal Ltd. London that inspected material had not been dispatched. On 15.10.1981 LUN also sent a telex to State Bank of Indore not to release the payment to Stena Metal Ltd. London as the material sent was not in conformity. On 16.10.1981 a telex (D-18) was sent by LUN mentioning that quality was bogus. Communication (Ex. D-11) was also made to by LUN to its liason-officer at Calcutta on 17.10.1981. LUN also informed to the Metal Scrap Trade Corporation, Calcutta as per telex (EX. D-12) on 19.10.1981 that metals supplied was off grade shredded and un-re-rollable material. Letter dated 10.11.1981 was also written to Govt. Communication (Ex. D-11) was also made to by LUN to its liason-officer at Calcutta on 17.10.1981. LUN also informed to the Metal Scrap Trade Corporation, Calcutta as per telex (EX. D-12) on 19.10.1981 that metals supplied was off grade shredded and un-re-rollable material. Letter dated 10.11.1981 was also written to Govt. of India that material sent by Stena Metal Ltd. London was not in conformity with the specifications. Similar letters were written on 12.10.1981, 14.10.1981 and on 19.10.1981. 5. Award has been made rule of the Court by the learned District Judge. Objections under section 33 of the Arbitration Act have been rejected and pendente lite interest has been awarded at the rate of 9% per annum from 11.5.1982 till the payment was made. Dissatisfied with the order passed by District judge making the award rule of the Court this appeal has been preferred. 6. It was submitted by Mrs. Jai Laxmi Aiyer, learned counsel for appellant, that arbitrator has exceeded the jurisdiction inasmuch as arbitrator had exceeded the terms of the agreement entered into between LUN and M/s. Digvijay Industries Pvt. Ltd. It was the joint responsibility of members of association and representatives of LUN to inspect the material and it has not been established that steel scrap supplied was not re-rollable. It was further submitted that after having received supply of 114.600 MT the entire amount could not have been ordered to be refunded; even if it was not re-rollable steel scrap. The finding recorded by the arbitrator being perverse deserves to be set aside. 7. Shri Rakesh lain, learned counsel for respondent, has referred to the various correspondence/letters written by LUN admitting that Stena Metal Ltd. London had failed to supply re-rollable steel scrap. Agreement was specifically for supply of re-rollable steel scrap. LUN was the purchasing Agent, as per the agreement between the parties having failed to supply the required goods, it was not open to LUN to retain the amount of security and the money paid for supply of re-rollable steel scrap, quantity of 114.600 MT was unloaded outside the factory in spite of refusal made by M/s. Digvijay Industries Pvt. Ltd., entire consignment was one and the same, thus, the receipt of supply was rightly declined by M/s. Digvijay Industries Pvt. Ltd., hence, no case for interference in this appeal was made out. 8. 8. First we advert to the submission whether arbitrator has exceeded the jurisdiction while fastening the liability upon the LUN and acted beyond agreement. As per submission made by Mrs. Jai Laxmi Aiyer, learned counsel for appellant, in the agreement there was no provision for refusal of the supply made and for refund of the amount. We have gone through the agreement. The agreement was entered into between LUN, party No. 1 and M/s. Digvijay Industries Pvt. Ltd., party No.2. LUN was appointed as agent to import re-rollable steel scrap on behalf of party No. 2, party No.2 was to be supplied re-rollable steel scrap as per Clause 6 of the agreement. Same is quoted below: "vi) Party No. 1 will release to party No.2, 1500 M.T. of re-rollable steel scrap out of such material which has been imported by it from other countries." There had been a joint inspection of the material before the dispatch from foreign country by representatives of LUN and M.P. Steel Re-rolling Mills, Association. No doubt about it party No.2 was a member of the M.P. Steel Re-rolling Mills Association but the fact remains that there are aforesaid documents which indicate that some other material was jointly inspected at London, at Stena Metal Ltd. London. These documents on record have been referred to by the arbitrator in its award to come to the conclusion that material in dispute was not re-rollable steel scrap, it did not confirm to the description and specification agreed between the parties. Telex dated 17.9.1981 sent by LUN to Stena Metal Ltd. London indicates that dispatched material was not re-rollable steel scrap. it contained lot of melting scrap and Stena Metal Ltd. London failed to carry out the order in terms of condition fixed by LUN. A Telex dated 17.10.1981 sent by LUN to its liason-officer, Calcutta also contains the aforesaid admission, beside this another telex dated 19.10.1981 by LUN to Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Calcutta Metal mentioned that off graded shredded and unre-rollable material was supplied and a false and bogus certificate from ICMBA was obtained, the material supplied was not the material which was inspected by the representative of LUN. There is various other overwhelming correspondence on record containing an admission on behalf of LUN that re-rollable steel scrap was not supplied and some other material had been inspected, thus, in our opinion, party No.2 was justified in not accepting the supply. As per agreement party No.1 was required to release 1500 M.T. of re-rollable steel scrap out of such material which has been imported by it from other countries. 9. The first consignment of 1400.600 MT of steel scrap was supplied, that too was also unloaded in spite of refusal made by party No. 2 and arbitrator has found that the scrap was unloaded outside the factory of M/s. Digvijay Industries Pvt. Ltd., despite their refusal to take delivery thereof, LUN did not take care to receive it back, so the party No.2 was not liable to pay for it. On specific query being made to Ms. Jai Laxmi Aiyer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of LUN, to show the material to indicate that the finding was perverse, she has not been able to point out any material suggesting the finding recorded by the arbitrator to the perverse. Fact remains that even 114.600 M.T. scrap which was unloaded outside the factory was not re-rollable steel scrap as admitted by LUN in various correspondences, thus, the refund of the security of Rs. 3 lacs and deposit of Rs. 5,25,000/which was made for supply of re-rollable steel scrap was rightly ordered by the arbitrator. In our opinion, the arbitrator has not exceeded its jurisdiction. There was no necessity for providing in the agreement as to contingency of failure to supply re-rollable steel scrap. We are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the arbitrator on both the issues were based on evidence on record. 10. Arbitrator has rightly held that LUN was purchasing agent of party No.2. In case there was wrong supply made, LUN ought to have proceeded against Stena Metal Ltd. London but it could not have retained the amount of security paid by party No. 2. and the amount deposited for supply of re-rollable steel scrap; as the amount was paid for the supply of re-rollable steel scrap, LUN having failed to supply it, could not have retained the amount, thus, Arbitrator has not exceeded jurisdiction in directing the refund of the amount. and the amount deposited for supply of re-rollable steel scrap; as the amount was paid for the supply of re-rollable steel scrap, LUN having failed to supply it, could not have retained the amount, thus, Arbitrator has not exceeded jurisdiction in directing the refund of the amount. Thus, we find that there being no error of law committed by the arbitrator, learned District Judge has rightly declined to interfere. 11. Resultantly, appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred of this 'appeal.