Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The Court emphasized that it generally should not substitute its interpretation for that of the Arbitrator, as the Arbitrator's decision is considered binding between the parties. The Court's power to set aside an arbitral award is limited to instances where the award is patently illegal, erroneous on its face, or in contravention of the law or public policy (!) .

2. When the parties have reached a concluded contract and acted upon it, the Court should not substitute or alter the terms through judicial intervention. The Arbitrator, appointed by the parties, is the final judge of facts, and their findings of fact are not to be interfered with simply because the terms of the contract were not interpreted correctly (!) (!) (!) .

3. The scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is narrow. An arbitral award can only be challenged if it is found to be erroneous, patently illegal, or against the provisions of the Act, including the fundamental policy of Indian law or the interests of India. The Court is precluded from reappreciating evidence or arriving at a different conclusion on the merits of the case (!) (!) .

4. The arbitration award in this case was upheld because the Arbitrator's detailed analysis and findings were consistent with the contractual terms, and there was no patent illegality or perversity. The Court also noted that the parties had entered into a concluded contract, which they acted upon, making it inappropriate to challenge the award on grounds of public policy or legality (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. The Court clarified that the words "public policy" referenced in the relevant statutes relate to fundamental legal principles and the interests of the nation. An arbitral award that aligns with the parties' contractual obligations and does not violate fundamental legal policies should not be set aside on the ground of public policy (!) (!) .

6. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the High Court's decision to uphold the arbitral award was correct, and there was no merit in challenging the award on the grounds of perversity, illegality, or public policy (!) .

These points collectively reinforce the principle that courts should respect the autonomy of arbitration and the finality of arbitral awards, intervening only in clear cases of illegality or fundamental breach of public policy.