Contractual default and arbitral findings supported forfeiture of security and retention of equipment under the agreement.

Concurrent findings sustained an arbitral award where the contractor's failure to transport the export container caused loss of the export schedule and exposed the respondent to liabilities. On that factual basis, forfeiture of the security deposit and rejection of the refund claim were upheld because the contract permitted forfeiture in light of the default and resulting liabilities. The retention of the fork lift and hand trolleys was also upheld as a contractual security measure, not arbitrary or outside the agreement. No ground for interference with the award was made out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the forfeiture of the security deposit and rejection of the claim for refund were justified; (ii) Whether the detention of the fork lift and hand trolleys was arbitrary or contrary to the contract, warranting interference with the arbitral award.

Issue (i): Whether the forfeiture of the security deposit and rejection of the claim for refund were justified.

Analysis: The contract was terminated after the appellant failed to transport the export container to its destination, which resulted in loss of the export schedule and consequential exposure to third-party claims and expenditure incurred by the respondent. The arbitrator and the courts below recorded concurrent findings that the termination was valid and that the respondent was entitled, under the contractual arrangement, to forfeit the security amount in view of the liabilities arising from the appellant's default.

Conclusion: The forfeiture of the security deposit and rejection of the claim for refund were justified and are upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention of the fork lift and hand trolleys was arbitrary or contrary to the contract, warranting interference with the arbitral award.

Analysis: The respondent relied on the contractual right to retain the equipment as security in the light of the outstanding liabilities and the bank guarantee furnished for release of the container. The arbitral tribunal and the courts below found that the appellant had failed to perform the contract diligently and that the retention of the equipment was not arbitrary or beyond the terms of the agreement.

Conclusion: The detention of the fork lift and hand trolleys was not arbitrary and no interference with the award was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings upholding the arbitral award and the dismissal of the appellant's objections disclose no ground for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings upholding an arbitral award will not be disturbed where the challenged contractual actions are supported by the terms of the agreement and the proved consequences of the contractor's default.

---