LexFOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA versus JOGINDERPAL MOHINDERPAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. JOGINDERPAL MOHINDERPAL MARCH 3, 1989 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATIIAN, JJ.] Arbitration Act, 1940-Sections 14, 17, 30 and 33--Arbitrator making a speaking award-Unless the reasons are erroneous as pro- positions of law or view of the arbitrator cannot be substantiated- A ward not liable to be set aside by Court. The Respondent entered into a contract with the appellant Food Corporation of India on or about May 1979 whereunder the appellant- ~ Corporation was to give to the Respondent Paddy for being shelled/ converted into rice at the rate of 70% of the Paddy. The Paddy was to be lifted from the godowns of the appellant. The shelling charge was fixed D at Rs.2/20 p. per quintal. Some dispute having arisen between the parties, the Respondent moved an application before the Subordinate Judge for appointment of an arbitrator and the Sub-Judge appointed the arbitrator who gave bis award on 22nd January 1982. In the award the arbitrator did not allow some of the claims made by the appellant, in particular, a claim of Rs.55,060/29 p which was claimed as a penalty ~ E @ Rs.2 per quintal for not lifting the balance of Paddy. The arbitrator F in disallowing the claim on that count, took the view that the appellant bas to prove the actual losses suffered by it which the appellant failed to prove. Another claim not allowed by the arbitrator related to Rs.3,23,856/08. p. in respect of the cost of non-delivery of 137-39548 tonnes of rice @Rs.165 per quintal. 1 The Respondent made an application u/s. 14 of the Arbitration ' Act, 1940 to make the award a rule of the Court. The appellant 6Ied the objections u/s 30 and 33 of the Act. The Subordinate Judge, First Class, on 2nd December, 1982, found that the award was liable to be set aside and accordingly modified the award and passed a decree in favour of G the appellant for the amount. On 2nd March, 1984, the Addi. Distt. Judge, on appeal by the Respondent, reversed the order passed by the Subordinate Judge. He held that the award was not liable to be cor- --f· reeled/interfered with in the manner done by the Sub-Judge. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant went in revision to the High Court. The High Court on 11.12.84 dismissed the revision petition. Hence this H appeal by the appellant-Corporation. 880 >- F.C.I. v. JOGINDERPAL [MUKHARJI, J.J 881 "' Dismissing the appeal, this Court, A "' HELD: That the arbitrator has chosen to make a speaking award in the instant case, that is he has given reasons for his conclusions. Since the arbitrator has chosen to give reasons, unless it is demonstrated to this Court that such reasons are erroneous as such as propositions of B 'I' law or a view which the arbitrator has taken is a view which it could not • possibly be sustained in any view of the matter, then the challenge to the :J- award of the arbitrator cannot be sustained. l886H; 887A-BJ .,. ~ Even assuming that there was some mistake, such a mistake is not amenable to be corrected in respect of the award by the Court. This was a fair order passed after considering all the records. The conclusion c arrived at by the arbitrator is a plausible conclusion. The Court has no x jurisdiction to i_nterfere or modify the award in the manner sought for by the appellant. l887G-H) The Addi. Distt. Judge was justified in correcting the order of the D Subordinate Judge and the High Court was also justified in not interfer- ing with the order of the Addi. Distt. Judge. [887H; 888A) Mukkudduns of Kimkunwady v. Inamdar Brahmins of Soorpai, + 3 MIA 380; M/s. Sudarsan Trading Co. v. The Government of Kera/a & Anr., (1989) 1 JI. Today SC 339; Champsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj E Ba/loo Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd., L 1922 IA 324, followed. - Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, [1989) I SCC 411, referred to. t CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1945 F ' and 1946 of 1989. 1 I From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.1984 of the Punjab • and Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 1794 and 1795 of 1985 . DL L.M. Singhvi and Y.P. Rao for the Appellant. G G.L. Sanghi, J.P. Gupta and S.K. Agarwal for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABY ASA CHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted. H 882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R. A This appeal arises from the decision of the High Court of Punjab "' & Haryana, dated 11th December, 1984 dismiss
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.