KANPUR NAGAR MAHAPALIKA versus M/S NARAIN DAS HARIBANSH

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 20-08-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KANPUR NAGAR MAHAPALIKA 
v. 
M/S NARAIN DAS HARIRANSH 
A ugusl 20, 1969 
(K. S. HEGDE ANfl A. N. RAY, JJ.J 
Arbitration-Award of Arbitrator-JVhen bad for error apparent on 
the face of the award-If Arbitrator required to deal w/lh legal contentions 
in hi,; award-Consequence of his not doing so. 
A 
B 
The appe1Iant entered into a contract with the respondent for certain 
construction work at Kanpur. 
The contract contained an 
afbitration 
C 
agreement between the parties. The respondent filed a suit in 1946 claim-
ing certain monies due from the appellant against its final bills but, at the 
instance of the appellant, the suit was stayed and the matter referred to 
arbitration. 
The arbitrator made an a\\·ard in March 1960 in favour of 
the ·plaintiffs determil)ing the amount payable by the appellant. 
There-
after the appellant made an application for setting aside the award on the 
ground that the arbitrator misconducted himself in not properly consider-
ing that the claim of the respondent was barred by limitation under s. 326 
D 
of the U.P. Act 2 of 1916. Although the trhl court se,t uside the award, 
the High Court, in appeal, reversed this decWon. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that the 
award was bad by reason of an error apparent on the face of the award. 
HELD : Dismissing the appeal, 
Jn the present case, it could not be predicated of the award that there 
was any proposition of law forming the basis of the award, and, therefore, 
it could not be said that there was any error apparent on the face of the 
a\vard. 
The arbitrator was under the agreement in the present ca'Se to 
decide the questions which were within the province of the arbitrator's 
jurisdiction. It could not be said on the face of the award that the arbi-
irator has decided on any principle of construction which the law does 
not countenance. 
[30 G-H; 31 A-BJ 
It is sufficient if the arbitrator gives an award on the whole case and 
he need not deal with each issue separately. It was open to the arbitrator 
to decide on the rival contentions of the parties as to limltation. In doing 
so if an a'rbitrator makes a mistake either in law or on fact and if such 
mistake does not appear on the face of the award, the award will not be 
bad notwithstanding any mistake. [31 B-C] 
Messrs. A/opi Parslzad and Sons Did. v. Union of India, [1962] S.C.R. 
793; C/lampsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weavinp Co. 
Ltd., [1923] A.C. 480 and Dr. S. Dutt v. University of L elhi, 
A.I.R. 
1958 S.C. 1050; referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1749 of 
1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated May 3, 1962 of 
the Allahabad High Court in F.A.F.O. No. 330 of 1960. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
KANPUR NAGAR MAHAPALIKA v. N. D. HARIBANSH (Ray. J.) 29 
J. P. qoyal and G. N. Wantoo, for the appellant. 
JY.. C. Chatterjee and Ganpat Rai, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ray, 1. This is an appeal from the judgment dated 3rd May, 
B 
1962 passed by the High Court at Allahabad reversing the order 
of the Civil Judge setting aside an award. 
The appellant was formerly known as Municipal Board, Kan-
pur and thereafter as Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika. The appellant 
in the former name of Municipal Board, Kanpur and the respon-
dent entered into a contract in writing for construction of zone 
C 
pumping stations and reservoirs at Kanpur. One of the clauses in 
the said agreement in writing contained an arbitration agreement 
between the parties. 
The respondent filed original suit No. 45 of 1946 in the Court 
of Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, against the Municipal Board, 
D 
Kanpur and claimed a sum of Rs. 60, 802-4-9 representing the 
claims on account of balance sum due according to the final bills, 
interest on the amount due, refund of security deposit and interest 
thereon. The suit was instituted in the year 1946. The Muni-
cipal Board, Kanpur thereafter made an application under section 
34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for siay of the suit contending 
that the suit related to a matter a!lreed to be referred to arbitra-
E 
ti<'n. 
On 9th August, 1952, the Court ordered stay of the pro-
ceedings. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order .. By 
an order dated 4th November, 1957 the High Court at Allahabad 
directed that since the appeal was not pressed by the plaintiff the 
Court should proceed with the matter of reference. 
Thereafter 
on 17th May, 1958 the Court of Additi

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