TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eby the said Bench dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the said High Court allowing the applications filed by the respondent herein by setting aside the awards made by the Arbitrators. Two disputes pertaining to the claim of the appellants against the respondent herein were referred to arbitration and the same were numbered as Arbitration Reference No. 313/95 in the case of Deepa Jain and Arbitration Reference No. 316/95 in the case of Hari Om Maheshwari the appellants herein. Though both the arbitration proceedings were taken up for consideration together. In Reference Case No. 313/95 i.e. case of Deepa Jain the evidence of both the parties concluded on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned Single Judge who heard the two applications together accepted the case of the respondent herein and set aside the awards in question and remitted the same to the Arbitrators for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity to the respondent to lead his evidence. They also directed that one more arbitration proceedings between one Jayesh Sanghani and the respondent herein which was earlier remanded to the Arbitrators should be decided along with these arbitration proceedings. An appeal filed against the said common order of the learned Single Judge before an Appellate Bench of the Bombay High Court came to be dismissed and it is against this common order of High Court of Bombay that the appellant is before us. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court was justified in giving a further opportunity to the respondent. Hence, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. From the above narrated facts the question that falls for our consideration is whether the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court were justified in setting aside the award of the arbitrators solely on the ground that the respondent herein who failed to appear before the arbitrators on a day fixed for his evidence ought to have been granted another opportunity to produce his evidence. The relevant part of the proceeding note of the arbitrators dated 8.4.1999 reads thus : Meeting adjourned to 10th 11th of May, 1999 at 4.00 p.m. No no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the learned Single Judge by respondent which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge. While doing so learned Single Judge observed : the cross-examination of M/s D. Jain and Co. was over in 1997, the cross-examination of witness examined in Shri Maheshwari's reference was completed on 8th April 1999 and the Arbitrators adjourned the matter to 10th and 11th May 1999 for the petitioner to lead his evidence. However, it appears that the petitioner noted a wrong date and therefore, he did not appear on 10th May 1999. It is clear from the record that there is an application submitted by the petitioner before the Arbitrators on 20th May 1999 regarding the mistake committe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwise invalid. A bare reading of the said section shows that the civil court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere with an award made by the arbitrators and it certainly does not permit the civil court including the High Court to interfere with the discretionary order of granting or refusing an adjournment. This Court in Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India [(1999) 9 SCC 449] considering section 30 of the Act held thus : Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 providing for setting aside an award of an arbitrator is rather restrictive in its operation and the statute is also categorical on that score. The use of the expression shall in the main body of the section makes it mandatory to the effect that the awa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd. The court as a matter of fact, cannot substitute its evaluation and come to the conclusion that the arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between the parties. If the view of the arbitrator is a possible view the award or the reasoning contained therein cannot be examined. A similar view has also been taken in State of U.P. vs. Allied Constructions (2003) 7 SCC 396 and Continental Construction Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (2003)8 SCC 4. From the above it is seen that the jurisdiction of court entertaining a petition or application for setting aside an award under Section 30 of the Act is extremely limited to the grounds mentioned therein and we do not think that grant or refusal of an adjournment by an arbitrator come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
