Award could not be interfered with unless conclusions of Arbitrator are erroneous.

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Aggrieved against the Order of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 295 of 2000 (dated 31.10.2003), setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator, Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) has preferred this Appeal.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows:

(i) The first respondent is physically handicapped Ex-serviceman. LPG Distributorship was granted to the first respondent in 1996 for supply of LPG Cylinders for household consumers in Saligramam Area. There were frequent complaint from customers due to market backlog. For shortage of 249 cylinders, a debit note for Rs. 3,73,500/-was raised on 31.7.1994 and part payment against the same was received from the first respondent-Distributor on 8.1.1996 (Rs. 2,11,650/-) and not the entire amount. The balance amount of Rs. 1,66,850/-was due to the Company on account of SV/TV amount. Inspite of letters, which were duly acknowledged by the first respondent-Distributor no amount was paid. When senior Sales Officer of Appellant-Corporation had visited the godown and the showroom in the morning of 28.1.1997 and there were no signs of any distribution of refill cylinders. The godown and showroom were found to be closed and number of customers were waiting for making their refill bookings. The Distributorship was terminated as per Clause 27(g) and 27(n) of the Distributorship Agreement, by termination letter dated 21.2.1997. Aggrieved by the termination of Distributorship, the first respondent-Distributor raised the dispute and the Second respondent Mr. S.K. Dutta, was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator.

(ii) Upon consideration of rival contentions of the parties in the light of terms of the Agreement, the learned Arbitrator found that the first respondent-Distributor admitted the default of making delayed payment. Since, there was default in making payment of the money, the learned Arbitrator has held that BPCL is within its right to terminate the Agreement and there were also other breaches, such as, shortage of cylinders and pressure regulators and inspite of notice given to the first respondent-Distributor, the cylinders and pressure regulators were not returned to BPCL and the learned Arbitrator took the view that the termination was not wrongful.

(iii) Challenging the award, the first respondent-Distributor has filed a Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, to set aside the award. Upon consideration of contention of both parties, the learned single Judge set aside the award observing that the Appellant-Corporation is bound to act in accordance with Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG) for LPG marketing as formulated by three LPG Marketing Companies. The learned single Judge took the view that the Appellant-Corporation has not followed the guidelines and proper procedure in dealing with the alleged irregularities or illegalities and the termination is in violation of principles of natural justice and also MDG.

3. Challenging the impugned judgment, Mr. R. Murari, the learned counsel for the Appellant-Corporation has submitted that the irregularities fall under Clause 27(g) and 27(n) of the Distributor Agreement and the Arbitrator has rightly held that the termination was done according to the Rules and Guidelines. It was submitted that when the Arbitrator has upheld the termination, the learned single Judge was not right in setting aside the award. Placing reliance upon ( Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Amritsar Gas Service and Others Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Amritsar Gas Service and Others Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Amritsar Gas Service and Others ) 1991 (1) (Vol. 14) Arbitration Law Reporter 97, it was submitted that when the contract is terminable, which in its nature determinable, the learned single Judge was not right in granting the relief of restoration of contract/restoration of Distributorship, which is against the principles.

4. Submitting that the scope of interference with award is very