The scope of interference by a court in an arbitration award is limited to the grounds specified in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A court cannot set aside an award on the ground of patent illegality unless the award is in violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law or is in conflict with the most basic notions of justice or morality. A court cannot set aside an award on the ground of perversity unless the award is so irrational that no reasonable person could have arrived at the same conclusion.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1996") to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 02nd May 2019 and the rectified Award dated 31st July 2019 seeking the following prayer:

"INTERIM RELIEF

That in view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass the interim prayers as under:

a) pass an order, granting a stay on the operation of the impugned order dated 02.05.2019 read with rectified award dated 31.07.2019 till the pendency of the proceedings before this Hon'ble Court;

b) pass an order, waiving the pre-deposit amount for challenging the said impugned award before this Hon'ble Court;

c) pass an order, reducing the pre-deposit amount if under any circumstances the prayer (b) is not allowed;

d) pass any other further order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid and in the interest of justice, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) Set aside the Arbitral Award dated 02.05.2019 alongwith the rectified award dated 31.07.2019 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator;

(b) Award the cost of the petition to the Petitioner; and

(c) Pass such other further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner is Indian Railways, one of the transport organization of the country and an autonomous body under Union of India.The respondent is Besco Limited (Wagon Division), a public limited company with headquarters in Kolkata and is engaged in the business of designing and manufacturing various equipment including the rail wagons which are being supplied to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner floated the E-Tender No. 2011/RS(I)/954/l(TC) dated 23rd June 2011, inter-alia inviting tenders for manufacturing and supply of different types of wagons and on 28th June 2011 issued a corrigendum to the said E-Tender as per which a new kind of wagon i.e., BCNHL wagon, had to be manufactured and all the bidders were required to submit the prototype of the wagon and get the same approved by the petitioner and thereafter, start the production of the same. Therefore, now comprising five types of wagons; viz. BOXNHL, BOBYN, BTPN, BCNHL and BRN wagons were to be manufactured by the respondent.

4. The respondent submitted its offer to manufacture and supply different type of wagons pursuant to which a Counter Offer was made to the respondent by the petitioner. The respondent conveyed its unqualified acceptance to the said counter offer on 13th January 2012 pursuant to which the respondent was awarded a Contract dated 16th January 2012 by the petitioner.

5. As per the Contract, orders for 2937 wagons were to be released in two tranches by the petitioner in favor of the respondent with 1469 wagon in first tranche (I Tranche) and 1468 wagon in the second tranche(II Tranche).The respondent was placed with the Contract order of 1469 wagons (under I Tranche) and to be qualified for the release of 1468 (under II Tranche), the respondent was required to supply 1021 wagons in the duration of February 2012 to July 2012 i.e. a period of six months.

6. The disputes arose between the parties when the petitioner deducted and diverted 253 wagons from II tranche on the basis that the respondent had failed to supply 50% of the total orders outstanding in accordance with Clause 2.2 of the Contract, which were required before the release of the II tranche.

7. The respondent vide legal notice dated 05th April 2013, invoked the arbitration clause as per the terms of the said Contract after the dispute arose from the Contract between the petitioner and the respondent for the supply of wagons. The respondent invoked arbitration on the ground that the petitioner diverting wagons and delaying the release of quantities. The petitioner claims that it had the