The main legal principle established is that any forum adjudicating upon rights and liabilities based on a contract must determine them in accordance with the contractual terms, and it is impermissible to modify or rewrite the contract.

S.C. Gupte, J.

This arbitration petition challenges an award passed by a sole arbitrator in a reference agreed to between the parties in a writ petition before Gujarat High Court.

2. The Petitioner is the liquidator of Madhavpura Mercantile Co-op Bank Ltd ("Bank"). The Respondents are constituents of the Bank, having availed of various loan facilities from it from time to time. The terms and conditions of the loan finance were contained in the respective sanction letters read with the security and other documents executed by the Respondents in favour of the Bank. The Respondents committed default in repayment of the loans and their accounts were declared as nonperforming assets (NPAs). In view of the defaults, the Bank commenced proceedings before an arbitrator appointed under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 ("Act"). The awards passed by the arbitrator were challenged by the Respondents in various civil miscellaneous applications. During the pendency of these applications, sometime in the year 2012, the Bank went into liquidation and the Petitioner came to be appointed as its liquidator. Its banking licence was cancelled on 4 June 2012 by the Reserve Bank of India. With a view to expedite the process of recoveries, the Petitioner proposed a compromise, known as Compromise Scheme of Settlement ("CSS-2013"). The scheme was "non-discretionary and non-discriminatory" and offered to all debtors of the Bank. The scheme expressly stipulated that no conditional proposal for settlement or proposal disputing the NPA date of the account would be accepted and in case any clarification was required, the decision of the Petitioner would be final. By its separate communication to the Respondents, the Petitioner gave an opportunity to the Respondents to avail of CSS-2013. The NPA date in the case of the Respondents was expressly stated to be "31 March 2001". The Respondents, vide their separate responses, all dated 13 April 2015, unconditionally accepted the offer and undertook to abide by all terms and conditions of CSS-2013. The Respondents paid a sum of Rs.34,25,000/- towards 5 % of the total sanctioned amount for five group companies being Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 herein. It is the case of the Petitioner that under CSS-2013, the Respondents were required to pay the balance sum of Rs.30.26 crores (as against the decretal amount of Rs.212.54 crores) to the Bank and having committed default in such payment, were guilty of various breaches and offences. The Petitioner accordingly adopted legal proceedings, including criminal complaints, against the Respondents. The Respondents approached Gujarat High Court for quashing these complaints. At the hearing of their quashing petition before the Court, the parties agreed to appear before the Settlement Advisory Committee constituted to consider offers submitted by borrowers under CSS-2013. The committee determined the amount payable by the Respondents under the scheme and submitted its report dated 10 October 2015, confirming the amount claimed by the Petitioner. As per the calculations made by the Petitioner under CSS-2013, which were inter alia confirmed by the Settlement Advisory Committee, the Respondents were required to pay Rs.30.19 crores thereunder (i.e. a net amount of Rs.27.19 crores after deducting Rs.3 crores already paid by the Respondents). The Respondents, however, admitted their liability only to the extent of Rs.16.19 crores under CSS-2013 inter alia by raising a dispute about the NPA date. When the matter came up before Gujarat High Court for further orders, the parties arrived at consent terms. Under these terms, the Court directed the Respondents to file an undertaking accepting the payment of Rs.16.19 crores as an undisputed sum (i.e the One Time Settlement (OTS) amount calculated by the Respondents on the basis of the relevant RBI Master Circular and CSS-2013 Scheme issued by the Petitioner) as against the sum of Rs.30.19 crores. The Court directed the Res