( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only) is directed against an Award dated 26. 4. 1999 passed by the Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 11-F/98. The objector /petitioner prays for selling aside the Award dated 26. 4. 1999.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that vide an agreement dated 10. 11. 1994 respondent No. 1 had entered into a contract with the petitioner for supply of 500 ml. of refined mustard oil. In the agreement there was a risk purchase clause also. The respondent was required to furnish a security deposit by 24. 11. 1994. Time was extended upto 8. 12. 1994, but still the respondent failed to furnish the security amount. According to the petitioner/objection, respondent No. 1 could not deliver refined mustard oil in terms of the agreement till the extended period upto 20. 2. 1995 and as such, the contract was cancelled by a notice dated 10. 3. 1995. Risk purchase was made from State Trading Corporation limited. On the basis of difference in the price, the petitioner/objector served a notice upon respondent No. 1 to recover the loss on account of risk purchase. However, respondent No. 1 declined to pay the amount. The disputes between the parties were referred to the Arbitrator, respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, although it had made risk purchase from the lowest offer as shown in the chart (Annexure P1), the Arbitrator rejected its claim holding that the lower offer was ignored. The Arbitrator perhaps got misled by the prices quoted by the tenderers on account of different rates of Central Sales Tax, which was to be borne by the petitioner/objector. It is pointed out that the rates quoted by STC, delhi from whom the risk purchase were the lowest, if the CST was also taken into consideration, but still the Arbitrator came to the conclusion that a lower offer was ignored.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 has opposed the prayer of the petitioner/objector mainly on the ground that the objections raised by the petitioner are not covered by section 34 of the Act for setting aside the Award. It is also pleaded that there was no valid and binding contract between the parties and the respondent could not supply the material to the petitioner due to the fact that the goods were to be packed in HDPE jars/drums as per specifications given in the contract, but the same were not available in the market. It is also asserted that while making risk purchases, the petitioner had ignored the lowest offer, which was from M. P. State, oicfed, Bhopal. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent No. 1 and controverted its pleas.

( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the records.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner/objector has vehemently argued that the impugned Award passed by respondent No. 2 is liable to be set aside in view of the fact that the Arbitrator had not only misread the evidence on record but taken a totally capricious view also resulting in miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that the Arbitrator had totally failed to apply his mind to the material before him and had drawn conclusions which were absolutely contrary to the record.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has relied upon state of Rajasthan v. Puri Construction Co. Ltd. and Another, (1994) 6 SCC 485; Indu Engineering A Textiles Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority, (2001) 5 SCC 691; S. Sony and Co. v. Delhi Development Authority, 53 (1994) DLT 267 and Madan Lal v. Union of India and Others, 40 (1990) DLT 330 : 1990 (19) DRJ 310 to contend that the objections raised by the petitioner are not covered by section 34 of the Act and as such, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Award even if the findings given by the Arbitrator are erroneous or based upon misreading, misconstruction