As per case facts... A caterer (BFP) and the IRCTC had a dispute over reimbursement rates for meals supplied on trains. The initial tender was based on older fixed tariffs, ... but a subsequent circular mandated the caterer provide a regular meal instead of a cheaper combo meal while continuing to pay only the combo meal price. The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the caterer on the ground of commercial fairness, disregarding the contractual clauses tied to the Railway Board's unilateral policy changes. The High Court partially upheld and partially set aside the award, leading to the current appeal. The question arose whether an Arbitrator, or a court under the Arbitration Act, has the jurisdiction to rewrite the express commercial terms of a contract or grant relief on grounds of equity when the award is contrary to binding policy decisions. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the IRCTC's appeal, holding that the Arbitrator had exceeded jurisdiction by rewriting the contract in contradiction with the Railway Board's binding policy circulars, making the award patently illegal and in conflict with the public policy of India, and thus setting it aside.