MISHRA, J.

1. These appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise from a Common Judgment in proceedings filed at the instance of Manali Petro Chemicals Ltd., (MPCL for short) and UB Petro Products Limited (UBPL), under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for directing the award to be filed into court and at the instance of the appellant, Madras Refineries Limited (MRL), under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act for setting aside the award filed on behalf of MPCL and UBPL and to direct the Arbitrators to deliver the award into Court and fix a reasonable sum towards fees payable to the arbitrators. The trial judge has found no merit in the petitions of the appellant and ordered to make the award the rule of the court and to make accordingly a decree in terms of the award.

2. The bulk of the brief, the number of documents and the attitude of the parties to dispute and even innocuous statements of each other, have given to this case several twists and turns. We have noticed, however, that at least as respects facts, parties have hardly any scope for a dispute and when such facts upon which they entered into arbitration are culled out, the area of controversy between the parties is reduced to the conduct of the Arbitrators in making the award and the validity of the award otherwise.

3. Almost all descriptions and narrations necessary to know everything concerning the parties to the proceedings are stated in the judgment of the trial court, in case any examination in particular of any fact is necessary, we may pick up the same at the appropriate stage.

4. The facts which do not appear to be in dispute are that the appellant is an Instrumentality of the Government of India and is incorporated as a Government Company. It is engaged in the manufacture of various petroleum products and petrochemical feedstocks. Some of the products of the appellant are sold at prices determined by the Government of India and some classified as free trade products are sold at prices determined by the appellant and in accordance with the terms and conditions of any contract of sale. The respondents 1 and 2 are incorporated as public limited companies and are engaged in manufacture of certain petrochemical products. They entered into an agreement with the appellant on 4.5.1990 for the supply of propylene, a raw material for their various products on mutually agreed terms and conditions. Almost all terms and conditions of the agreements between the parties viz. (1) the appellant and Manali Petrochemicals Limited and (2) the appellant and UB Petroproducts Limited, are similar and almost the same, except some variations in numbering the terms and conditions. The most important of the terms and conditions are clauses which relate to the price and mode of fixation of price of propylene for sale. The appellant which is the seller agreed to supply annually to the respondents 1 and 2, who are the buyers of propylene, a maximum of a specific quantity of propylene which conformed to the specifications set out in the schedule of the agreement for the production of propylene-based che micals. Propylene supplied by the appellant in terms of the said agreement was required to be used only for the production of propylene oxide, propylene glycol and polycle. The appellant under the agreement was required to transfer propylene to the respondents by ‘pipeline to the point at its batter limit’ at a pressure and temperature as given in the Schedule to the agreement. The respondents were obliged to lift not less than the specified quantity of propylene every year in the first two years of the agreement, (we are told at the Bar there was further extension of the period; in any case there is a direction in the award for maintaining the future supply at a specified rate). For pricing the propylene, however, the parties introduced in the agreement the following clauses:

“3.1. The basic price for the propylene supplied to the B