TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Banerjee, J. - Leave granted. 2. The appeal pertains to the issue of interference of the court under sections 30 and 33 of the repealed Arbitration Act, 1940 ( the Act ). Undisputably, in the contextual facts, the award in question is a non-speaking award of a former Judge of the High Court at Patna who acted as an Umpire on appointment by the Court. The award was made a rule of court by a judgment dated 20-4-1995 rejecting the petition under sections 30 and 33. The High Court in appeal however set aside the award recording therein that the award is otherwise invalid in terms of clause ( a ) of section 30 and hence, the petition for special leave to appeal to this court. 3. Section 30 was rather restrictive in its operation and the use of the expression shall in the main body of the section made it mandatory to the court that the award of an Arbitrator shall not be set aside excepting for the reasons as mentioned therein namely : ( a )Arbitrator or Umpire has misconducted himself; ( b )The award has been made or passed after the supersession of the Arbitration or the proceedings becoming invalid; ( c )Award has been improperly procured or otherwise invalid. These ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumentary and oral evidence in the record for the purposes of finding out whether or not the Arbitrator has committed an error of law. The court as a matter of fact, cannot substitute its own evaluation and come to the conclusion that the Arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between the parties. 5. Be it noted that the award of the Arbitrator is ordinarily final and conclusive unless a contra intention is disclosed in the agreement itself. This Court in the case of Union of India v. A.L. Ralliaram [1964] (3) SCR 164 stated that right or wrong the decision of the Arbitrator is binding excepting in the case of error of law on the face of it or in the event the award itself or in a document actually incorporated in it, there is found some legal proposition which stands out to be the basis of the award and which is erroneous. Ralliaram s decision expressly records that the civil courts cannot exercise apparent power over the decision of an arbitrator, wrong or right irrespective (excepting however the situation noticed above). 6. In Jivraj Bhai U.S. v. Chintaman Rao Balaji [1964] 5 SCR 480 it has also been laid down that it is not open to court to speculate, whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. On appeal however, the High Court set aside the award being an otherwise invalid award in terms of section 30( c ). In paragraph 11 of the judgment impugned before this court, the High Court stated as below : "On a thoughtful consideration of the matter, I reach the conclusion that it was not possible for the umpire in the given situation to award any amount at all to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant was undoubtedly entitled to a sum of Rs. 71,400 by way of risk purchase differential, because the plaintiff inspite of repeated extensions had failed to deliver the goods compelling the defendant to purchase the materials at a higher price from elsewhere. Learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, right in his submission that the impugned award amounts to putting a premium on dishonesty, and rewards the plaintiff who is responsible for repeated breaches of the contract for mala fide reasons. I am, therefore, unable to uphold the award, and is fit to be set aside, being an ...otherwise invalid award in terms of section 30( a ) of the Act." By reason of the above this special leave petition has been filed wherein notices have been issued and the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly hereinafter but before so doing, it would be convenient to note the observations of this court in paragraph 6 (at page 764 of the Report) wherein it has been categorically stated that the court was concerned with clause ( a ) of section 30 which empowers the courts to set aside an award on the ground that an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself or the proceedings - this observation of the court itself takes out the relevancy of the decision in the matter since presently we are concerned with clause ( c ) of section 30 to wit otherwise invalid . This is however, apart from what is noticed hereinbelow as detailed submissions have been made relying upon the judgment of this court. The recording of facts by this court in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 stand out singularly singular distinguishing feature between in the case of V.G. George ( supra ) and the appeal under consideration before this court presently. For convenience sake, the above noted paragraphs are set out hereinbelow : " 11. Coming to the present appeal we find that in the impugned award the arbitrator has stated the case of the parties, the issues framed by him, his findings on each issue and the amount awar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered by the contract and he could not sue strangers in his own name in respect of that land, it was his responsibility to settle all problems and objections which arose in the course of the mining work between him and his mining workers, but not with strangers like Kudikidappukars and the local public who claimed either rights in the land or rights and privileges against the respondent, and it was the respodnet s duty to see that the entire extent of mining area detailed in the tender form was available for mining and mining operations could be carried on there quietly and without hindrance, and whenever complaint regarding obstruction was received the respondent tried to discharge that duty by appealing to public authorities for help, but without success. 17-18. Claimant suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 2,81,461.26 and the respondent is liable to make good that loss." (p. 765) 11. The factual narration in the case of V.G. George s ( supra ) as above makes it evident and thus distinguishable from the factual element of the present appeal and we need not dilate thereon in any further detail suffice it to record that the decision in the case of V.G. George ( supra ) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
