Basant, J. –

(i) Are the findings of the Arbitrator

(a) that the claimant is not bound by the stipulation No.7 in Ext.C10 and

(b) that the claimant can take advantage of the other stipulations in Ext.C10 correct and justified?

(ii) Can those findings be held to be illegal perverse, unjust or immoral?

(iii) Can the award passed by the Arbitrator be consequently held to be opposed to the public policy of India?

(iv) Are those vices sufficient to justify the interference by the District Court with the award of the Arbitrator under Section 34 (2) (b) (ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)?

These questions are thrown up for consideration in this appeal.

2. A brief resume of the events that have led to this appeal appears to be necessary. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimant’) and the respondent Kerala Automobiles Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the company’) had entered into an agreement under which the company had agreed to supply automobiles manufactured by it to the claimant, a foreign national. There is no dispute that they had agreed that disputes between them if any must be resolved by arbitration. Purchase order was placed for 144 vehicles. 48 of them were supplied by the company. When the consignment of 48 vehicles reached the claimant at Egypt, he raised an objection that they were defective, unusable and not roadworthy. Disputes thus arose between the company and the claimant. They attempted to settle their disputes by direct negotiation. Parleys were held between the officials of the company on the one hand and the claimant on the other. Ultimately they appear to have settled their disputes. The terms of the agreement/settlement were reduced to writing in the form of minutes. Ext.C10 dated 03.11.2007 is admittedly the minutes of such meeting in which parties settled their disputes. It is not disputed that the minutes were earlier recorded, were typed later and were presented for signature of the parties. On the next day after the meeting, minutes were signed by the company and the claimant. On the side of the company, officers of the company signed the minutes. On the side of the claimant, claimant himself as also RW1, an advocate, who was representing the claimant and who was present with him throughout the negotiation, signed the minutes.

3. Within a week of signing Ext.C10, the claimant issued Ext.C11 letter dated 09.11.2007 expressing his intention not to abide by clause 7 of Ext.C10. This was followed by Ext.C12 formal notice issued by the claimant on 09.02.2008.

4. The claimant staked a claim for huge amounts by way of compensation for the defective/not roadworthy automobiles that were supplied to the claimant. The dispute was ultimately referred for arbitration by an order of a designated Judge of this Court. The learned Arbitrator entered upon reference. Before the Arbitrator, the claimant proved Exts.C1 to C26. PWs 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the claimant. PW1 is the claimant. PW2 is the consultant of PW1 and PW3 is a representative of the shipping agent. We shall later refer to the relevant documents in Exts.C1 to C26.

5. On the side of the Company, P.W.1 who had signed Ext.C10 minutes was examined. R.W.2 a person who had been deputed by the company to proceed to Egypt was also examined. Exts.R1 to R11 were marked on the side of the company. Annexure-A1 is the list of vehicles found by the Arbitrator during his inspection to the factory of the company on 15/11/08.

6. The learned Arbitrator by the award dated 4/3/09 came to the conclusion that the company is liable to pay Rs.47,83,720/- or its equivalent 1,22,000 U.S. Dollars to the claimant. Alternative directions were also issued.

7. The crucial findings on which the Arbitrator came to a decision against the company are:

(1) The claimant is not bound by Clause (7) of Ext.C10 to which he had admittedly subscribed his signature.

(2) The claimant is entitled t