S. HARCHARAN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 76 · Decided: 28-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
S. HARCHARAN SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
AUGUST 28, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND 
S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.) 
Arbitration Act, 1940: Sections 14, 17, 30 and 33-Contract for 
specified work-Claim for entire additional work at increased rate-
Arbitrator awarding increased rate for part of the additional work-
Whether Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction-Award-Whether vitiated. 
The appellant was· awarded a contract for constructing approa-
ches to certain Bridge structure. As per the agreement, he was required 
to do hard rock cutting to the extent of 7 ,54,530 cft. and the rate rixed 
was Rs.129 per thousand cft. plus 2%. Actually the appellant was 
required to perform hard rock cutting to the extent of 18,18,704 cft. 
For the additional work, the appellant claimed payment at the rate of 
Rs.200 per thousand cft. He also claimed certain other sums under 
other heads. Dispute in respect of 4 heads was referred to arbitration. 
The arbitrator in his award disallowed two claims and allowed the other 
two claims, one of which was in respect of the additional work of hard 
rock cutting, and awarded a sum of Rs.52,800 under this head. The 
arbitrator filed the award in the High Court. After considering the 
objections filed by the respondent a Single Judge of the High Court 
ordered that the award be made a rule of the Court. The respondent 
filed an appeal against the said order and the Division Bench set aside, 
ex-parte, the claim for higher remuneration at the rate of Rs.200 per 
thousand cft. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred an appeal, by' 
special leave. 
The other appeal, also by special leave, is against the High 
Court's rejection of the prayer for setting aside the ex-parte judgment. 
G 
Allowing the former appeal and disposing of the latter one, 
HELD: 1. As regards the award of an arbitrator under the Act, 
the law is well settled that the arbitrator's adjudication is generally 
considered binding between the parties for he is a tribunal selected by 
the parties and the power of the court to set aside the award is restricted 
H 
to cases set otit In secttonc30 of the Act; It is, however, 11ot.11pen to the 
' 
76 
.... , 
I
HARCHARAN v. U.0.1. 
77 
Court to speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator, as to 
what Impelled the arbitrator to arrive at his conclusion. But the juris· 
diction of the arbitrator is limited by the reference aitd if the arbitrator 
has assumed jurisdiction not possessed by him, the award to the extent 
to which it is beyond the arbitrator's jurisdiction would be invalid and 
liabl~ to be set aside. An arbitrator or umpire is under no obligation to 
give reasons In support of the decision reached by him unless under the 
arbitration agreement or the deed of submission he is required to give 
such reasons. If the arbitrator or umpire chooses to give reasons in 
support of his decision it Is open to the Court to set aside the award if it 
finds that an error of law has been committed by him on the face of the 
record. An award can neither he permitted nor set aside merely on the 
ground that it does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion or 
decisions reached in it except where the arbitration agreement or the 
deed of submission requires him to give reasons. [82H; 83A~E] 
Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth and Others v. Chintamanrao Balaji 
and Others, [1964] 5 SCR 480; Raipur Development Authority and 
Others v. M/s Chokhamal Contractor and Others, [1989] 2 SCC 721, 
relied on. 
2.1 In the instant case the arbitration agreement or the deed of 
submission did nut require the arbitrator to give reasons and,· there .. 
fore, the award cannot be questioned on the ground of an error on the 
B 
c 
D 
face of the award. The Dhision Bench of the High Court set aside the 
E 
award in respect of the claim relating to payment for additional work of 
hard rock cutting on the ground that in making the award the 
arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by allowing a rate to the contractor 
in excess of the agreed rate for the job of hard rock cutting against the 
terms and conditions in clause 12 of the agreement.'[83F-G] 
2.2 Under clause 12 of the agreement, the Engineer-in-charge 
was empowered to make any additions to the original specifications that 
may appear to him to be necessary or advisable during the progress of 
the work and the contractor was bound to carry out the work in accor· · 
dance with any instructions given to him in writing signed by the 
F 

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