The court emphasized that the arbitrators' conclusions were either matters of fact or interpretation of the contract, and unless they were impossible views or shocked the conscience of the court, there was no reason to find fault with the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

1. This arbitration petition challenges an award passed by a tribunal of three arbitrators in a reference arising out of a salvage contract. The Petitioner, who was the salvor, had raised claims against the Respondent-ship-owner on account of damages for breach of contract. The Respondent had raised counter-claims against the Petitioner. Both the claims and the counter-claims were rejected by the arbitral tribunal. The Petitioner-salvor has come in challenge from rejection of its claims.

2. The Petitioner had raised claims against the Respondent-ship-owner on account of idling charges. It was the Petitioner's case that though security for the salvage operations to be carried out by the Petitioner was to be provided to the salvors within ten days of signing of the contract, i.e. by 17 September 2009, the Respondent did not do so until 9 December 2009. It was submitted that the Petitioner nevertheless commenced salvage operations on 7 November 2009 against a sum of Rs.40 lakhs paid to it on an adhoc basis and as an interim measure by the Respondent. It was submitted that the Petitioner did not want to carry out any substantial work or incur substantial costs before the Respondent submitted the payment guarantee and hence mobilised only some salvage personnel and basic equipment in tune with the amount paid at that point of time, i.e. between 7 November 2009 and 9 December 2009. The Petitioner claimed to have accordingly mobilised personnel and basic equipment, and carried out minimum work so as to prevent the dredger from drifting further aground and for her safety. It was the case of the Petitioner that the payment guarantee was furnished by the Respondent finally on 9 December 2009. It was submitted that on account of non-furnishing of the payment guarantee in time, the Petitioner was entitled to claim idling charges as it had kept its vessel on stand-bye but could not mobilise it and the vessel kept idling all this while. Secondly, it was claimed that there was some interference or sabotage by the previous contractor of the Respondent. It was the Petitioner's case that the contractor had come to the site on 17 November 2009 and removed the wire ropes connecting the dredger and the ground anchors (which had been put out in preparation to pull the dredger towards deeper water) and consequently the dredger drifted further aground and this practically negated the work that had been carried out by the Petitioner until then. Thirdly, it was claimed that there was stoppage of work by Gujarat Maritime Board due to want of permission to carry out salvage work. According to the Petitioner, as per oral understanding between the parties, besides paying the port, customs and government charges, the Respondent was also responsible for obtaining requisite permissions from the authorities, including Gujarat Maritime Board, and stoppage of work on account of want of the latter's permission was to the account of the Respondent and idling charges resulting thereby were payable by the Respondent. It was, on the other hand, the Respondent's case that the Petitioner, in the first place, had accepted performance of the promise of payment guarantee on the part of the Respondent on 7 December 2009 without putting the Respondent to the notice of any claim for damages or otherwise; and this disentitled the Petitioner from claiming any damages for late performance. Secondly, it was submitted that by reason of the pre-receipt issued by the Petitioner on 11 January 2010 as well as the subsequent receipt to the underwriters of the salvaged vessel, the Petitioner was estopped from raising any further claims under the salvage contract. It was submitted that these receipts amounted to discharge of the Petitioner's claims, if any, under the contract of salvage. On individual claims of idling charges made by the Petitioner, the Respondent submitted answers on merits. In the light of the pleadings of the parties and material placed on record by them, th