JAGDISH CHANDER BHATIA versus LACHHMAN DAS BHATIA

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 11-01-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

JAGDISH CHANDER BHATIA 
A 
~ 
v. 
LACHHMAN DAS BHATIA 
JANUARY 11, 1993 
(L.M. SHARMA, CJ AND A.M. AHMADI, J.] 
B 
Arbitration Act, 1940: 
Sections 14, 17, 30 and 33-Awart:f-When can be set aside-Non-
consideration by the Aroitrator of al! documents submitted by patty-Whether. c 
-
amounts to misconduct-lnteiference by Coult-Whether called for-Coult 
not to sit in appeal or re-assess evidence. 
The dispute betweeu the appellant and the respondent in respect of 
. --< 
their interests In certain properties, was referred to arbitration by this 
Court and a retired Chief Justice of a High Court was appointed as the D 
sole Arbitrator with direction to make a speaking award, and the Ar· 
bitrator submitted his Award. Against this award the appellant-objector 
filed objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, contemliug 
that the Arbiteator bad misconducted himself in that he did not take into 
consideration several documents which were placed on record before him E 
to support the objector's case and, hence, the aw.ard was invalid under 
clauses (a) and (c) of Section 30. 
Disposing of the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. There is no infirmity on the face of the award which 
F 
would entitle this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 30 of the 
-, 
Arblteation Act. The Arbitrator has made a speaking award setting out bis 
' 
reasons for the conclusfons reached by him and bas thus complied with 
the direction of this Court giveu earlier. [S6D, SSE] 
1.2. The documents in question mainly relate to the rights and inter-
G 
ests of the parties in the properties situate in that part which now belongs to 
the Dominion of Pakistan. Since they were refugees they bad made certain 
) 
claims under the law governi!lg rehabilitation of displaced persons in 
respect of the properties left behind by them. The claim was sanctioned in the 
joint name of the objector's predecessor-in-interest and the respondent in 
respect of the properties left behind by the family. On the strength of that H 
51 
52 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993] 1 S.C.R. 
A claim, one of the houses was purchased in the said name. The Arbitrator, 
however, came to the conclusion, that the property in question was pur-
chased from the funds contributed by the objector's predecessor-in-interest 
and the respondent. The share of the objector was held to be 1/7th in the 
share of the predecessor-in-interest, since deceased. Since the contribution 
B 
c 
made for payment of the price was not equal, the Arbitrator allotted a larger 
share to objector's predecessor-in· interest and consequently, the objector 
has got a share on the basis thereof, when inheritance opened on the death of 
the predecesso1·-in interest. (558-D,H, 56A] 
1.3. It is clear from the award that the Arbitrator did not go into the 
rights and interests of the parties including the HUF in the properties left 
behind in the Dominion or Pakistan. That was not necessary because the 
fact that the claim was sanctioned in the joint name of the Objector's 
predecessor-in-interest and the respondent was never in dispute. The 
short question, which the Arbitrator was required to consider, was as 
regards the title of the properties, which were the subject matter of the 
D reference, which included a house purchased on the strength of that claim. 
E 
It is not necessary for the Court to go into the question of.the rights and 
interests of the parties in the properties left behid in the Dominion of 
Pakistan since the Arbitrator was right that he was called upon to decide 
the interest of the parties in respect of two houses alone, which were the 
subject matter of the reference. Therefore, the Arbitrator bad not miscon-
ducted himself by refusing to enumerate all !hose documents in question 
in his award because be was bound by the scope of the reference which was 
limited to the two houses and not the properties left behind in the 
Dominion of Pakistan by the parties. [SSF, 568-C] 
F 
2. In order to interfere with an award, the Court must find out 
whether the Arbitrator has misconducted himself or there was any infir· 
mity in the procedure, such as, the Arbitrator having travelled beyond the 
terms of the reference or there being an error apparent on the face of the 
award. It is not misconduct on the part of an Arbitrator to come to an 
G erroneous conclusion on a disputed issue. The Court does not sit in 
appeal and does not reassess the evidence. Even if the Court feels that had 
it been l

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.