LexHINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD. versus C. RAJASEKHAR RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD. A v. C. RAJASEKHAR RAO JULY 27, 1987 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.) B Arbitration Act, 1940: Sections 3, 28 and 33-Arbitration pro- ceedings-Not to be unduly prolonged-Whether Court has power to extend time for giving award after award is made-Award-When can be set aside-Reasons not given by arbitrator-Whether court entitled to speculate and probe mental process by which arbitrator reached C conclusion. There was an Agreement between the respondent-contractor and the appellant-construction company in respect of certain works. Differ- ences and disputes arose and there were proceedings before the arbitrators named In the Agreement. As the arbitrators could not agree D ,- and there were differences, this Court by an Order dated 16th June, 1983 directed that the arbitrators appointed by each of the parties be appointed arbitrators and if there was disagreement between the arbitrators, the matter was to be referred to the Umpire. In pursuance of the said directions the parties appeared before the arbitrators who referred the matter to the Umpire and the Umpire after consideration E ~ made an award dated 15th July, 1985. The petitioner-construction company made a petition to this Court for a decree in terms of the award, which was opposed by the respondent-contractor contending that (a) the Umpire had made a speaking award and that the validity or otherwise of the said award was F justifiable in a Court of law, (b) that the Umpire had no jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitration on or about 18th December, 1984 as the period of two months from the date of his entering upon the reference had expired and consequently the award was beyond time, and ( c) that the award contained error of law on the face of the award and there ~ were inconsistent findings. G The Court while confirming the award, HELD: 1.1 The policy of law is that arbitration proceedings should not be unduly prolonged. The arbitrator, therefore, has to give the award within the time prescribed, or such extended time as the H 653 65>1 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987) 3 S.C.R. A court concerned may in its discretion extend, and the Court alone had been given the power to extend the time for giving the award. [656E) 1.2 The Court has got power lo extend time even after the award has been given or after the expiry of the period prescribed for the award. But the court has to exercise its discretion in a judicial manner. B This power could be exercised even by the appellate court. [656F] c 1.3 The arbitrator gets the jurisdiction to enlarge the time for making the award only in a case where after entering on the arbitra· tion, the parties to the arbitration agreement consent to such enlarge- ment of time. [657B] In the instant case, in view of the policy of law that the arbitration proceedings should not be unduly prolonged and in view of the fact that the parties have been taking willing part in the proceedings before the arbitrator without a demur and had all along been willing to extend time, this will be a fit case for the extension of time, and the time for D giving the award is accordingly extended and the award will be deemed ....._ to have been given in time. [656F·G) ' 2.1 An award might be set aside by the court on the ground of error on the face of the award, but an award is not invalid merely because by a process of inference and argument, it might be demons- E trated that the arbitrator had committed some mistake in arriving at his conclusion. (6570) ~ Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth and others v. Chintamanrao Balaji and others, (1964) 5 S.C.R. 480, followed. . y F 2.2 Only in a speaking award the Court could took into the reasoning of the award. It is not open to the Court to speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator, as to what impelled him to arrive at his conclusion. It is also not open to the Court to attempt to probe the mental process by which the arbitrator had reached his conclusion where it u not disclosed by the terms of his award. [6570, H, 658A) G r The instant case is not one of a speaking award. The Umpire had not spoken his mind indicating why he has done, what he has done, he has narrated only how he came to make the award. No reasons have been given for the purpose of making the award. There is no legal proposition in the award which is unsustainable or lm11roper. The H challenge to the award cannot
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.