The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's limited scope of review under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, and the deference to the arbitrator's decision based on a thorough consideration of the evidence and legal principles.

This is an application for setting aside of an award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

2. The claim in the arbitration proceeding is on account of damages suffered by the respondent/claimant due to failure on the part of the petitioner herein to take delivery of 8990 MTs of finished iron slabs under a contract dated 8th April, 1960.

3. The Hindustan Steel Ltd. (now known as the Steel Authority of India Ltd.) initiated the arbitration proceeding against the respondent partnership firm claiming a sum of Rs.15,79,635.46 on account of loss and damages for breaches of a contract dated 8th April, 1960 for sale and purchase of steel slabs. The claimant under the contract was to buy 25000 MTs of slabs of sizes and specifications given in the said agreement. The agreement mentioned the terms and the dates of delivery, price payable, and payment to be made, inspection, weight, test certificate etc. Thereafter, the parties mutually agreed to amend the said contract, inter alia, by extending the date of completion of sale of the contracted quantity up to 31st March, 1961. The price and payment clauses of the agreement were also suitably amended.

4. The contract also stipulated that under the Barter Agreement with the Iron and Steel Controller that the entire amount of dollar or pound earned by the export of these steel slabs shall be utilized by the respondent firm for import of finished steel materials as per stipulations of the Iron and Steel Controller.

5. The claimant on different dates had delivered to the respondent total 16,161.06 tonnes of the steel slabs up to 14th April, 1961. In spite of repeated requests of the claimant the respondent did not take delivery of the balance 8990 tonnes of the contracted materials which were lying at Vishakapatnam Port.

6. The claimant in their statement of claim averred that they obtained permission to sell the balance quantities either by private auction or by tender from the Iron and Steel Controller. The claimant had published sale notices inviting offers for purchase of the said materials at the Port of Vishakapatnam. They had sold to the highest bidder 9000 tonnes of steel slab which were lying undelivered at the Vishakapatnam Port and realized Rs.26,16,090.00 p. By the said sale they suffered loss of Rs.10,43,379.40 p. being the difference between the contract price and the price at which the said slabs were sold. The claimant also claimed from the respondent Rs.5,96,256.06 p. for the damages set out in Clauses (a) to (d) of Paragraph 39 of their statement of claim towards the ground rent paid to the Port Authorities for stacking and storage charges, cost of shifting the materials, cost of guarding, lighting and alternative guard and security of materials and interest by way of damages which the claimant would have earned on the price of the said goods (not taken delivery of) had such price been paid.

7. The claimant before the arbitrator has prayed for awarding a total sum of Rs.15,79,635.46 p. against the respondent.

8. The respondent filed a counter-statement/counter-claim denying the above claims. The respondent contended that the materials delivered to them were defective. In spite of their repeated demands, the claimant was able to deliver only 16,160,810 metric tonnes of materials. The respondent alleged that the claimant having failed to deliver within time, the foreign buyers of the respondent had cancelled their contract with the respondent.

9. The respondent had also alleged in their statement of defence that the materials were not properly weighed and marked. The respondent further alleged that the claimant was not in a position to give delivery of the said balance quantity of materials. The respondent’s case was that in December, 1962 there was an amicable settlement between the two parties by which there was accord and satisfaction of the contract dated 8th April, 1960 but the claimant had failed to act in accordance with the said settlement. As a result