Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugns the order dated 28th January, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of the objections, being OMP 106/2014 filed by the appellant, to the Arbitral Award dated 27th September, 2013 of an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of the nominees of the appellant and the respondent, who as per the Arbitration Agreement were to be the retired judges of the High Court or the Supreme Court, and of a third arbitrator who was required to be senior to the nominated arbitrators.

2. The particulars of the dispute which were referred to arbitration, the respective versions of the parties and the respective contentions of the parties are recorded in detail in the unanimous arbitral award running into 36 pages and have been recapitulated by the learned Single Judge also in his order running into as many as 19 pages. Considering the nature of the jurisdiction which we are exercising and the contentions before us, we do not feel the need to reiterate the same. Suffice it will be to state that the appellant bought Yellow Peas from the respondent, a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore and the dispute was qua the liability for demurrage levied for delay in unloading of the goods shipped by the respondent from Canada to the appellant at Vishakhapatnam. The Arbitral Tribunal held the respondent entitled to demurrage for 53 days 12 hours and 47 minutes amounting to USD 1,070,652.78 from the appellant and also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum against the appellant, from the date of notice i.e. 12th October, 2010 till the actual realization of the award amount. The counter claim of the appellant, of having earned a dispatch of 14 minutes for which the appellant claimed to be entitled to USD 5,833.33 from the respondent was dismissed. The respondent was also awarded cost of arbitration.

3. The challenge by the appellant to the award before the learned Single Judge was on the ground of the interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal of the terms of the contract, relating to lay time and demurrage, being based on the principle/ practice applicable to charter party disputes when it should have been based on the law applicable to the sale of goods and contracts.

4. The learned Single Judge has held:

i. That the appellant has failed to show as to how the award could be said to be opposed to public policy of India, as interpreted by the Supreme court in ONGC Ltd. vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705;

ii. that the tribunal had dealt at length with each and every of the appellant’s contentions, even though raised for the first time at the stage of final hearing, and rejected them on merits by giving reasons;

iii. that even the commentaries, being The Law of Demurrage by Hugo Tiberg (4th edition), and Benjamin, Sale of Goods (4th edition) relied upon by the appellant were found to be supporting the contentions of the respondent, rather than of the appellant;

iv. the Arbitral Tribunal had applied its mind to the pleadings, the evidence adduced before it and the terms of the contract and the court would not reappraise the matter as if it were an appeal;

v. interpretation of a term of the contract is a matter within the jurisdiction of the tribunal - it may be capable of two possible views, but if the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal is a plausible view, though not the only correct view, it would prevail and the court cannot substitute it with its own interpretation;

vi. the arbitral awards can be interfered by the court, only if the findings therein are totally perverse or based on a wrong proposition of Law;

vii. in the present case, there was no patent error in the reasons/findings given by the Arbitral Tribunal in rejecting the appellant’s contentions and in disallowing the application of the appellant for filing of amended written statement as the matter was entirely in the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal and there was no v