As per case facts, a hospital and government department awarded a security services contract to a firm. Disputes arose when the petitioners withheld payments, alleging the respondent failed to submit ... required documents like wage disbursement proofs and statutory contributions as per the agreement. An Arbitrator ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding outstanding payments and security deposit refunds. The petitioners challenged this Arbitral Award in the High Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, claiming it was irrational, illegal, and against public policy due to alleged non-compliance and procedural flaws. The question arose whether the Arbitral Award was valid and enforceable given the petitioners' claims of non-compliance with contractual obligations and procedural irregularities by the Arbitrator. Finally, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Arbitral Award. The Court found the Arbitrator's views reasonable and plausible, based on agreement interpretation and evidence, emphasizing its limited scope of interference. It concluded that the petitioners' objections were frivolous, and they could not justify withholding payments for services rendered, as no significant deficiencies were proven, and the award was not patently illegal or against public policy.