Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 798 (GAU)

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. MONI MADHAV DUTTA

2018-05-15

PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the respondent. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2009, passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati in Misc (Arb) Case No.176/2007. 2. The respondent as the proprietor of M/S Rajlakshmi Gas Service, is the claimant before the sole Arbitral Tribunal of Shri A. Misra, claiming an amount of Rs.21,96,720.00 and interest thereon against bills for toll charge from December, 2001 to May, 2004 against the present appellant. 3. The facts, upon which the claimant has founded the claim, may be recorded briefly. In pursuant to the tender No.NE/LPG/JT-2/2000, issued by the appellant corporation for transportation of filled LPG cylinders in vertical position Ex-Duliajan, the claimant/respondent submitted his tender. The claimant/respondent quoted, a price bid for transportation to Kamalabari as Rs.74.00 per cylinder exclusive of toll and ferry charges which would be billed on production of actual Government receipt. The appellant vide its letter dated 21.02.2001, allotted the work order to the claimant/respondent. Later on, the appellant offered the claimant/respondent Rs.65.00 per cylinder (rounded with) as transportation rate to and fro Kamalabari. In response to the said letter, the claimant/respondent accepted the said rate of Rs.65.00 excluding toll and ferry charges which would be billed on production of actual Government receipt issued by the District Authority which was clearly mentioned in the price bid. The claimant/respondent submitted its bill for toll and ferry charges on various dates along with the receipts issued by M/S Priyam Carrying Service for Nimati-Kamalabari ferry service. The respondent/appellant cleared the bill on 06.05.2003 for the month of February, 2001 to November, 2001 for toll and ferryghat charges for transportation of LPG cylinder from Nimatighat to Kamalabari and back from Kamalabari to Nimatighat. The bill amount of toll and ferry charges from December, 2001 to May, 2004 were not cleared by the Department of Finance of the appellant company though the same were served and cleared by the Deputy Manager, LPG, Jorhat etc. Vide letter dated 10.11.2003, the appellant for the first time raised objection against the rate of ferry charges and withheld the pending bills of the claimant/respondent. Vide letter dated 10.11.2003, the appellant for the first time raised objection against the rate of ferry charges and withheld the pending bills of the claimant/respondent. The ground for such withholding of the bills as informed to the claimant/respondent that after processing the ferry charge bills for the period February, 2001 to November, 2001 payment for which was released and comparing the bills of M/S Olee Bora (another transporter) for the same ferry crossing to Majuli, there was substantial difference in the rate charged by the claimant/respondent and the one charged by M/S Olee Bora. The claimant replied to the above letter dated 04.12.2003 stating that he was not in a position to comment on the rate quoted by M/S Olee Bora, asserted further that as per guidelines of Explosive Rules and Regulation and in the interest of safety, he transhipped the LPG cylinder on exclusive ferries. It was further stated that as per intimation of rate by the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, Dibrugarh, the rate of M/S Olee Bora was pertaining to common ferries which were shared by public and not exclusively as used by him in the interest of safety. The rates claimed by him were fixed by the Government of Assam and the payments of bills were sought in the form of reimbursement of the payment which he has already made to the concerned authorities and as such did not carry any element of profit whatsoever. It was further pointed out by the claimant/respondent that the rate charged by other transporters were in quintal basis and applicable to common ferries which were shared by to carry common goods to Majuli Island and not for the exclusive ferries as used by him as per the guidelines of Explosives Department and to that effect, he produced the certificate of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Garmur, Majuli, Government of Assam showing the toll charges as Rs.870.00 one way per full truck of cylinders and ferry charge Rs.3,650.00 only per trip one way per full truck of cylinders. He also submitted the letter dated 21.10.2003 issued by Office of the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, Dibrugarh issued to the Executive Engineer, IOC (AOD) Ltd., stating that rate of ferry is Rs.20.00 per quintal for carrying general goods only and this rate is not valid for carrying LPG as there is no approved rate against LPG fixed by the Government. The letter dated 18.09.2003, issued by the Department of Explosive, Government of India advising the claimant/respondent to transport the LPG cylinders only and exclusively by boat in the interest of safety, the letter dated 18.12.2003, issued by the Director of Inland Water Transport, Guwahati to Senior Area Manager, IOC (AOD) Ltd., informing the hire charge of RPL in between Nimatighat to Kamalabari is Rs.5,000.00 only per day excluding POL etc. for carrying of goods etc. It is submitted by the claimant/respondent that the above rate of Inland Water Transport is higher than the rate approved by the District Authority namely SDO (Civil) Garmur, Majuli. That the Inland Water Transport has fixed the above rate for one day only but in his case it took at least four to five days to carry filled and empty cylinders to and fro Nimatighat to Kamalabari. Accordingly, the claimant/respondent claimed the said amount of Rs.21,96,720.00 along with interest and an amount of Rs.6,67,584.00 with effect from June, 2004 to January, 2006 along with interest. 4. The appellant filed the written statement along with various documents and in the said written statement it has been specifically stated that the appellant entered into the LPG transportation contract for the period from February, 2001 to May, 2004 and included reimbursement of payment to LPG transporters against ferry, toll and octroi charges for river crossing location allowable, based on production of actual authenticated bills/cash receipts, over and above land transportation charges. It has been stated further that upon review of the tender documents for the contract commencing from February, 2001, it was observed that although tender terms did not specify separate charges to be paid for ferry crossing, the same has been allowed during the course of the tender finalization. It was also pointed out that separate charges for ferry crossing, over and above the point to point transportation rate were reimbursed in the preceding contract period. Transportation of LPG cylinders across the river required arrangement of additional infrastructures like ferry, separate truck to carry cylinders on the other side of the river. It was also pointed out that separate charges for ferry crossing, over and above the point to point transportation rate were reimbursed in the preceding contract period. Transportation of LPG cylinders across the river required arrangement of additional infrastructures like ferry, separate truck to carry cylinders on the other side of the river. Only two transporters namely M/S Rajlakshmi Gas Agency, Kamalabari and M/S Olee Bora of East Indane Gas Agency, Jorhat had offered to carry load to Kamalabari on the finalized rate and accordingly their trucks were engaged for transportation of LPG cylinders to and fro Kamalabari ex-Duliajan LPG Bottling Plant while the last transportation rates have been regularly cleared by LPG Bottling Plant on uniform rate, transportation bills for toll/ferry charges have already been separately cleared by the appellant upon submission of the same along with production of actual Government authenticated bills by the transporters which were forwarded directly to Finance Department for release under the contract effective from February, 2001. Bills for toll/ferry charges for a period of 26 (twenty six) months were together raised for the first time by the claimant/respondent in April, 2003 and placed in the IOC (AOD) Area Division Office, Tinsukia which were cleared on the basis of the certificate issued by SDO (Civil), Majuli for toll and ferry charges and actual authenticated bills. The toll/ferry charges against these bills worked out to be Rs.30.13 per cylinder. Subsequently, in July, 2003, it was directed by the Finance Department that ferry crossing charges against bills received earlier and cleared by the appellant at Jorhat directly for the period of February, 2002 to December, 2002 from the other transporter M/S Olee Bora, worked out to be around Rs.12.43 per cylinder only which was based on letter issued by the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, Government of Assam, Dibrugarh for goods toll charges of Nimati-Kamalabari ferry service. On specific enquiry from the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, the appellant collected that rate of Rs.20.00 per quintal in such ferry crossing is valid till date and the said rate is valid for carrying out general goods only and not valid for carrying LPG as there is no approved rate against LPG fixed by the Government. On specific enquiry from the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, the appellant collected that rate of Rs.20.00 per quintal in such ferry crossing is valid till date and the said rate is valid for carrying out general goods only and not valid for carrying LPG as there is no approved rate against LPG fixed by the Government. It is also accepted that the claimant/respondent was carrying LPG cylinders in an exclusive boat without sharing the same with general public on the strength of the letter issued by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Guwahati intimating the claimant/respondent that there is no objection for transportation of LPG cylinders by boat subject to the terms and conditions that no other article inflammable and hazardous nature should be transported along with LPG cylinders and the transportation should be strictly in accordance with Rules 34 and 35 of Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981. The said instruction was issued in the interest of safety. It is also taken note in the written statement that in the price bid it was specifically mentioned that rates are inclusive of loading/unloading/stocking charges at both ends. Finally it has been disputed that the rate accepted by the claimant/respondent of Rs.65.00 per cylinder is inclusive of toll and ferry charges for river crossing location. However, the same was paid separately against the actual production of authenticated bills for earlier contract till January, 2001. 5. Considering the pleading and the documentary evidence along with oral evidence the learned sole Arbitrator awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent thereby allowing the claim of Rs.21,96,720.00 and further directed to pay the award within two months failing which interest at the rate of 8 percent shall be computed along with principal amount till realization from the date of award. 6. Being aggrieved by the said award dated 22.01.2007, the appellant preferred Misc. (Arb) Appeal No.176/2007 under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.11.2009 by learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati. Thereafter this present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is preferred. 7. Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the Arbitral Tribunal committed serious misconduct. Instead of deciding the claim of the claimant/respondent within four corners of the terms of the agreement, the learned Arbitrator has gone beyond the terms of the agreement. 7. Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the Arbitral Tribunal committed serious misconduct. Instead of deciding the claim of the claimant/respondent within four corners of the terms of the agreement, the learned Arbitrator has gone beyond the terms of the agreement. The learned Arbitrator committed manifest error of law creating right in favour of the claimant/respondent and that too beyond the scope of the contractual provisions by applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation to re-write the terms of the contract which was failed to be taken note of by the learned court below. The rate quoted by the claimant/respondent is inclusive of toll and ferry charges, subsequent claim of the said toll and ferry charges separately is beyond the scope of the terms agreed by the claimant/respondent, rather the learned Arbitrator considered the same perfunctorily which the learned court below failed to take note of. 8. The appellant vide its letter dated 26.04.2001, called upon the claimant/respondent to intimate his acceptance of the work at the lowest quoted rate which was Rs.65.00 per cylinder (rounded with) of inclusive of charges in accordance with clause-H (1) of the tender documents and having accepted without objection, the claimant/respondent has no contractual right accrued in his favour entitling him to toll and ferry charges. A single instance of payment of toll and ferry charge due to inadvertent mistake and overlooking contractual provisions which existed between the parties, the same cannot by any stretch of imagination tantamount for acceptance on the part of the appellant of the condition of the payment of toll and ferry charges. The said inadvertence was realized by the appellant for which further payment for toll and ferry charges were withheld. The said facts were never looked into by the learned Arbitrator and the learned court below, following which there is a glaring mistake and error apparent in the award and the judgment passed by the learned court below. It is further submitted that the observation made by the learned Arbitrator that the tender conditions did not reveal anything about payment of toll and ferry charges but the subsequent findings that it is accepted by the appellant that such charges being reimbursed historically, according to him, such finding goes to show that the learned Arbitrator had gone beyond the scope of the terms of the agreement. Referring to the findings of the learned Arbitrator that the basis of the charges claimed by M/S Olee Bora have no backup documents confirming the requirement of law is perverse finding and similarly none consideration of the rate assessed by the expert body for ferry crossing by the learned Arbitrator also amounts to perversity and finally challenged the award in whole totally being without any jurisdiction. 9. Keeping in view the terms stipulated in the agreement, Mr. Sarma submits that the award passed by the learned Arbitrator is hit under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which the learned court below failed to take note of and as such he sought for setting aside the judgment passed by the learned trial court. In support of his submission, Mr. Sarma relied on the decision reported in 2008 (13) SCC 80 (Delhi Development authority vs R.S. Sharma and Company, New Delhi), and 2006 (1) SCC 86 , (State of Rajasthan v. Nav Bharat Construction Co.). 10. Mr. Kataki, on the other hand, submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the award passed by the learned Arbitrator. The stand of the appellant is clear and specific in order to come to the conclusion inasmuch as in the written statement it was specifically stated before the Tribunal that though the tender terms do not specify separate charges to be paid for ferry crossing over and above the point to point transportation rates so far such location is concerned, the same has been allowed during the course of the finalization of the tender process. Further it is that separate charges for ferry crossing over and above the point to point transportation rates were reimbursed under the preceding contract period. 11. Admittedly though the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that no such toll and ferry charges are applicable but it is an admitted position that the other transporter M/S Olee Bora is still being paid and as such there is no point in arguing by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Arbitrator has gone beyond the stipulated terms of the agreement. It is the basis of the plea of the claimant/respondent which is supposed to be looked into by the learned Arbitrator inasmuch as against specific query to the officials of the appellant there is an admission to the effect that M/S AOD has been historically paying additional toll and ferry charges. Further pointing out to the queries by the Arbitrator that whether in the year 2001-04 the contract included additional toll and ferry charges in the destination rate sought from the bidders the officials of M/S AOD replied in negative but in the written statement the stand of the appellant is that the same was allowed during the course of tender finalization is sufficient to decide the appeal against the appellant. It is further submitted by Mr. Kataki that the scope of examination by this Court the award passed by the learned Arbitrator is very limited. The decision arrived at by the learned Arbitrator is based on material piece of evidence, both oral and documentary. There is no material on record to show that the learned Arbitrator accepted any piece of evidence which is perverse in nature. Regarding the discussion of Arbitrator in respect with the legitimate acceptance, Mr. Kataki submits that though it is true that the Arbitrator is bound to decide the dispute within four corners of the agreement entered into by the parties but, the award shows that each and every issues discussed are based on evidence and no presumption and assumption has been drawn by the learned Arbitrator while passing the award. Reiterating Mr. Kataki submits that there is no violation of any terms stipulated under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 while passing the impugned award and the findings of the learned court below is justified and there does not arise any question of interference by this Court. 12. In support of his contention and the extent of jurisdiction of this Court in deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996, Mr. Kataki relies 2013 (2) GLR 464, (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Astra Construction (P.) Ltd.). 13. Considered the submission of the learned counsel. 12. In support of his contention and the extent of jurisdiction of this Court in deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996, Mr. Kataki relies 2013 (2) GLR 464, (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Astra Construction (P.) Ltd.). 13. Considered the submission of the learned counsel. The issue involved between the parties in the present appeal is in respect with the claim of the claimant/respondent against toll/ferry charges from December, 2001 to May, 2004 which as per the contention of the claimant/respondent is that he had paid it to the Government for toll and ferry charges for transportation of LPG cylinders from Nimatighat to Kamalabari and back from Kamalabari-Nimatighat. The appellant though cleared the bill of toll and ferryghat charges for the month of February, 2001 to November, 2001 but another contractor M/S Olee Bora also raised toll and ferry charge bills and on comparison, the appellant found that the rate charged by the claimant/respondent is much higher than the one claimed by Ms. Olee Bora. Having found the said difference, the appellant held up the pending bills of the claimant/respondent amounting Rs.21,96,720.00. In order to decide the said dispute, the same was referred to the learned Arbitrator and the sole Arbitrator directed the appellant to pay the claimant his entire bill amount of Rs.21,96.720.00 within a period of two months, failing which interest at the rate of 8 percent shall be computed along with the principal amount till realization from the date of the award. Mr. Sarma, the learned senior counsel assailed the award and the findings of the learned court below that by applying the doctrine of legitimate acceptance and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the learned Arbitrator rewrote the terms of the contract and allowed the claim of claimant which is specifically barred by the contract. In addition to that, he also assailed that single instance of payment of toll and ferry charges due to mistake and overlooking contractual provisions, the same cannot tantamount to acceptance on the part of the appellant of the conditions of payment of toll and ferry charges. Referring the letter dated 02.05.2001, wherein the claimant/respondent claimed to accept the offer for transportation of LPG cylinders to and fro from Duliajan Bottling Plant to Kamalabari at Rs.65.00 exclusive of toll and ferry charges, Mr. Referring the letter dated 02.05.2001, wherein the claimant/respondent claimed to accept the offer for transportation of LPG cylinders to and fro from Duliajan Bottling Plant to Kamalabari at Rs.65.00 exclusive of toll and ferry charges, Mr. Sarma submits that the said letter was not received by the appellant or any of its officials and in addition to that, the said letter indicates something fishy inasmuch as the letterhead varies from the one on record of the appellant. The said submission was very much on record but even then the learned Arbitrator failed to take note of the said fraudulent act of the claimant/respondent. 14. From the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant it is clear that this Court is to consider whether there is any patent illegality in the award passed by the learned Arbitrator. In (2008) 13 SCC 80 (supra.), the Hon’ble Apex Court after going through the various decisions held when an award to be interfered and the ambit and scope of Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and held as follows :- "21. From the above decisions, the following principles emerges : (a) An award, which is (i) contrary to substantive provisions of law; or (ii) the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Or (iii) against the terms of the respective contract; or (iv) patently illegal; or (v) prejudicial to the rights of the parties; is open to interfere by the court under Section 34 (2) of the Act. (b) The award could be set aside if it is contrary to : (a) fundamental policy of Indian law; or (b) the interest of India; or (c) justice or morality. (c) The award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the court. (d) It is open to the court to consider whether the award is against the specific terms of contract and if so, interfere with it on the ground that it is patently illegal and opposed to the public policy of India." 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, let me decide this appeal. I have perused the record and considered the submissions of both the counsels for claimant and the appellant. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, let me decide this appeal. I have perused the record and considered the submissions of both the counsels for claimant and the appellant. In the written statement of the appellant it has been specifically admitted that separate charges for ferry crossing over and above the point to point transportation rates were reimbursed under the preceding contract period. The transporters bill for toll/ferry charges have always been separately cleared by the appellant upon the submission of the same along with production of actual authenticated bills/cash receipts by the transporters. Further it has been pleaded that upon review of the tender documents for the contract commencing in February, 2001 (subject matter of the Arbitration) it was observed that although tender terms did not specify separate charges to be paid for ferry crossing, over and above, the point to point transportation sought for such location, the same has been allowed during the course of the tender finalization. 16. From the written statement itself, it is clear and apparent that the claim of the claimant regarding the toll and charges for ferry crossing was allowed during the course of tender finalization which now the appellant cannot take up the plea that payment for toll/ferry charges was not agreed by the appellant. Now the dispute is in respect with the rate which the claimant/respondent claims and as per the appellant is on the higher side compared to the one claimed by another transporter Ms. Olee Bora. The learned Arbitrator while examining the matter considered an explanation forwarded by the claimant/respondent that as per safety rules, LPG cylinders are to be transported exclusively without there being any other materials in the transport vehicle nor there being any other passengers except the permitted one under the rules. On the other hand, the rate of Ms. Olee Bora is in respect of transportation of LPG cylinders along with the passengers and other goods and the rate is on per quintal basis. The learned Arbitrator in order to accept the said contention of the claimant/respondent, perused the tender conditions and took note of the Clause D prescribing safety measures of the tender documents. Rule D (2) (i) stipulates that no other materials/goods are to be carried in the truck while it is loaded with LPG cylinders. The learned Arbitrator in order to accept the said contention of the claimant/respondent, perused the tender conditions and took note of the Clause D prescribing safety measures of the tender documents. Rule D (2) (i) stipulates that no other materials/goods are to be carried in the truck while it is loaded with LPG cylinders. Rule D (2) (k), prohibits that apart from the driver and the helper, no other person is to be allowed to remain in the truck carrying LPG cylinders. The said Rules are as per Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981. In addition to that the learned Arbitrator took note of the exhibit of the claimant/respondent which is the letter of Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Guwahati, addressing the claimant/respondent by which he was directed not to transport any inflammable or other articles of hazardous nature with the LPG cylinders. Taking note of such materials on record, the learned Arbitrator came to the finding that the claimant/respondent did not have any other option but to hire a ferry exclusively for causing transportation of such cylinders. Moreover, the learned Arbitrator also came to the findings on perusal of the letter of the Executive Engineer of Inland Water Transport Division, Dibrugarh dated 21.10.2003 and was satisfied to hold that the existing transportation rate on common items do not have any bearing with the rate of LPG cylinders because there is no approved rate for LPG cylinders fixed by the Government. The said stand of the claimant/respondent could not be refuted by the appellant. Accepting the said materials on record and the basis of claim of the claimant/respondent, the learned Arbitrator, going back to the queries put to the appellant and the reply therein with respect to the basis of claim of ferry charges by Ms. Olee Bora held that since there was no clear guidelines for causing such transportation of LPG cylinders, hence, the lowest bill without any backup valid documents regarding actual and lawful payment of toll and ferry charges cannot be imposed forcibly upon the claimant/respondent who caused transportation of the same by conforming the requirements of law and conditions of safety. Olee Bora held that since there was no clear guidelines for causing such transportation of LPG cylinders, hence, the lowest bill without any backup valid documents regarding actual and lawful payment of toll and ferry charges cannot be imposed forcibly upon the claimant/respondent who caused transportation of the same by conforming the requirements of law and conditions of safety. It is on the record that during the arbitration process the learned Arbitrator sought for copies of bills and backup documents of M/S Olee Bora related to actual expenditure incurred by her for toll and ferry charges which was specifically answered by the appellant that no such backup documents were in the custody of the appellant. Finally, the learned Arbitrator came to the findings that as there was no clear terms and conditions imposed upon the claimant to cause transportation of LPG cylinders and on the other hand, the tender conditions directed to abide by the Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981 and Rules of Explosive Substance Act and further considering that as per departmental approval note, additional toll and ferry charges were made a part of the official system which were paid historically held that the bills submitted by the claimant/respondent has valid backup supporting documents which could not be dislodged or refuted by the appellant. Further accepting the submission that the lower rate charged by the other transporter is in quintal basis which is applicable for common ferries shared by common public with common goods which is not applicable for exclusive ferry as required by the claimant/respondent under guidelines of the Explosive Department, Gas Cylinder Rules and as per conditions of contract held that the appellant cannot deny the claim of the claimant/respondent. 17. The submission of Mr. Sarma that the learned Arbitrator went beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement thereby invoking doctrine of legitimate acceptance cannot be accepted inasmuch as from the findings of the learned Arbitrator referred herein above, the learned Arbitrator came to the conclusion that in order to comply with the rules and regulations holding the distribution and transportation of LPG cylinders, the claimant incurred expenses as against the toll and charges for transportation of the LPG cylinders through ferry service. The tender conditions form the stipulations of the agreement on the basis of which the appellant permitted the claimant/respondent to transport LPG cylinders from Duliajan Bottling Plant to Kamalabari through Nimatighat. The tender conditions form the stipulations of the agreement on the basis of which the appellant permitted the claimant/respondent to transport LPG cylinders from Duliajan Bottling Plant to Kamalabari through Nimatighat. On perusal of the standard tender conditions for contract of vertical transportation of LPG cylinders by road which consisted of the guidelines for safety under clause-D, the heading "safety" has been stipulated and specifically mentions that the transportation of LPG cylinders are covered by the Gas Cylinders Rules, 1981 and the same will be the responsibility of the transporters to ensure that truck in the operation, fully conforms to the above rules meaning thereby the Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981. 18. Keeping in view the said terms, the appellant in its written statement pleaded that the tender terms though does not stipulate separate charges to be paid for ferry crossing, however, the same has been allowed during the course of the tender finalization and admitted that transportation of LPG cylinders to Kamalabari, located at Majuli involves ferry crossing across the river. The learned Arbitrator examined the basis of claim of the claimant/respondent keeping in view the letters of the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport and in order to compare the basis of the claim of the other transporter M/S Olee Bora sought for requisite documents which the appellant could not produce. The burden on the claimant/respondent lies in order to explain the basis on which he claimed the amount mentioned in the bills so raised by him. That burden as seen from the award, has been discharged to the full satisfaction of the arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator as referred by Mr. Sarma, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, did not consider the said letter dated 02.05.2001 which as per Mr. Sarma was a forged one. The learned Arbitrator considered the statements made by the officials of the appellant wherein it has been specifically admitted that such type of payment against toll and charges of ferry crossing had been paid to the contractor historically. If, at all, the appellant was aggrieved for non-taking of requisite step by the learned Arbitrator against the alleged forgery, a duty was cast upon it to ask for court assistance in taking evidence. However, the same was not done thereby indicating waiver of its right and submitted to the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator. If, at all, the appellant was aggrieved for non-taking of requisite step by the learned Arbitrator against the alleged forgery, a duty was cast upon it to ask for court assistance in taking evidence. However, the same was not done thereby indicating waiver of its right and submitted to the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator. Now at this stage, it cannot be raised, more so when the learned Arbitrator has not even relied the said letter dated 02.05.2001 purportedly written fraudulently by the claimant/respondent. In the case of McDermott International Inc. vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others (2006) 11 SCC 181 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice, etc. The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. So, scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the court at minimum level. In 2006 (1) SCC 86 (supra.), it was held that an Arbitrator cannot go beyond the terms and contract between the parties. In the guise of doing justice he cannot award contrary to the terms of the contract. If he does so, he will have misconduct himself. Of course, if interpretation of a term of the contract is involved then the interpretation of the Arbitrator must be accepted unless it is one which could not be reasonably possible. However, where the term of the contract is clear and unambiguous the Arbitrator cannot ignore it. 19. From the discussion made herein above, it is seen that the learned Arbitrator decided the dispute within the four corners of the tender documents forming part of the agreement between the parties and the findings are clear within the prescribed law of this country more specifically the Safety Rules prescribed by the appellant. 19. From the discussion made herein above, it is seen that the learned Arbitrator decided the dispute within the four corners of the tender documents forming part of the agreement between the parties and the findings are clear within the prescribed law of this country more specifically the Safety Rules prescribed by the appellant. There is no misconduct on the part of the learned Arbitrator and the reasoning of the learned Arbitrator in coming to the conclusion is logical and within the parameters in terms of the tender conditions keeping in view the safety rules in transportation of the LPG cylinders and the same cannot be held to be patently illegal. 20. The findings of the learned court below is upheld thereby upholding the judgment and order dated 20.11.2009, passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati in Misc (Arb) No.176/2007. 21. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost. Send back the LCR. 22. The order dated 10.11.2010 passed in MC Case No.536/2010, thereby staying the operation of the judgment and order dated 20.11.2009, passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati in Misc. (Arb) No.176/2007, stands vacated.