As per case facts, the Petitioner challenged an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Respondent had placed a purchase order for switches on ... the Petitioner, followed by a vendor agreement. An advance was paid, but a dispute arose due to non-delivery. The Petitioner claimed non-payment of full advance by the Respondent for component procurement as per prior practice. The Respondent asserted that the vendor agreement, which superseded prior arrangements, did not require full advance payment. The question arose whether the Respondent was obligated to pay a full advance for component procurement and if the Petitioner's non-delivery was justified. Finally, the Court found the arbitrator's interpretation plausible, stating that the agreement superseded prior discussions and did not mandate full advance payment. The Petitioner failed to substantiate its claim for full advance. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no patent illegality or perversity in the award.