TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was affirmed by the High Court of granting of interest, must be deleted. - C.A. 3054 OF 1988 - - - Dated:- 16-8-1988 - SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGNATHAN, JJ. For the Appellant : K. Parasaran, Attorney General, B.L. Saruparia and Badridas Sharma For the Respondent : Soli J. Sorabjee, Paras Kulad, Rohinton F. Nariman and Rathin Das JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Leave granted. Appeal is disposed of by the judgment herein. This appeal challenges the order of the High Court of Rajasthan, dated 16th March, 1988. The respondent s tender for construction of complete masonry dam (Civil Engineering Works) Mahi Bajaj-Sagar Project, Banswara, was accepted by the appellant for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of Rs. 1,70,63,026.37 which was revised to Rs. 1,25,706,17. It is stated that the arbitration proceedings were conducted for 52 days during which the number of sittings was 25. Various issues were framed. Minutes of the proceedings were recorded. The arbitrators gave the award on 8.12.1982. It is stated that the award did not contain any reason as to why and how they had arrived at the figure of Rs. 75,41,755 in favour of the respondent-company. The award, however, mentioned that the State of Rajasthan committed breach of contract and was also guilty of wrongful revocation of the agreement and the actions taken under Clauses 2 and 3 of the conditions of the Contract, were wrongful and unjustified. However. no reasons were indicated as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt is under challenge in this appeal. It was contended before us that the question whether on the ground of absence of reasons, the award is bad per se, is pending consideration by a Constitution Bench of this Court in C.A. No. 3137-39/85, 3145/85- Jaipur Development Authority v. Firm Chhokhamal Contractor etc. It was, hence, urged that this should await adjudication on this point by the Constitution Bench. We are unable to accept this contention. In our opinion pendency of this question should not postpone all decisions by this Court. One of the cardinal principles of the administration of justice is to ensure quick disposal of disputes in accordance with law, justice and equity. In the instant case the proceedings have long procrasticat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are bad or whether the decision would have prospective application only in view of the long settled position of law on this aspect in this country or not. Justice, between the parties in a particular case, should not be in suspended animation. Law as it stands today, as observed in Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth Ors. v. Chintamanrao Balaji Ors., [1964] 5 SCR 480 is that award made by an arbitrator is conclusive as a judgment between the parties and the Court is entitled to set aside an award only if the arbitrator has misconducted himself in the proceedings or when the award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration or if the arbitration proceedings have become invalid under Sec. 35 of the Arbitrati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no legal proposition which is the basis of the award, far less any legal proposition which is erroneous. Also there is no allegation of any misconduct in the proceedings. It is an error of law apparent on the face of it and not mistake of fact which could be the ground for challenging the award. See in this connection the observations in Union of India v. Bungo Steel Furniture P. Ltd., [1967] 1 SCR 324. Also see the observations of this Court in Allen Berry Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, New Delhi, [l971] 3 SCR 282. Hence, the High Court was right in the instant case. There is, however, one infirmity in the award as sanctioned by the High Court, that is to say, the grant of interest pendente lite. The arbitrators have observed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest. We are unable to accept this. What Mr justice O. Chinnappa Reddy meant to say by the latter judgment in Executive Engineer (Irrigation), case referred to in Food Corporation of India, (supra) was where the disputes regarding the merit of the case were pending in the Court and such disputes instead of being decided by the Court adjudication had been referred to an arbitrator by the Court, in such cases the arbitrators deciding in the place of the Court, would have the same powers to grant interest pendente lite as the Courts have under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. Instant case is not such a proceeding. In that view of the matter this part of the award, which was affirmed by the High Court of granting of interest, must be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
