LexSMT. SANTA SLLA DEVI AND ANOTHER versus DHIRENDRA NATH SEN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 Darya Sin:h •• St•'• of Pur1jab GajntMqU/car J. 1963 AJril 26. 410 SUPRENIE COUllT REPORTS [19M] VOL. reappreciate the said evidence and decide whether the view taken by the High Court is right or not. In our opinion, the conviction of the appellants rests on the appreciation of oral evidence and no case has been made out for our interference under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The result is, the appeal fails and is aismissed. SMT. SANTA SlLA DEVI AND ANOTHER v. DHIRENDRA NATH SEN AND OTHERS (B. P. SINHA a. J., J. c. SH.AH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.). Arbitratiun-Incompletion of award-Silence of Arbi- trator on plea p/,aud for decision-lmplies rejectiun of the plea-Validity of award-Should be upheld if reasonably possible-Arbitrator need not decide every matter of dispute ""less specifically required-Arbitration Act, 1940 (.X of 1940), •• 30. The appellant as well as the respondents are the heirs of one Hemendra Nath Sen who died intestate in 1929 leaving considerable properties. Dispute having arisen between his heirs an agreement for partition was entered into determining their shares. Among other provisions there was one by which the 2nd appellant was to have 5 annas shares in a glass factory and the rest of the members dividing the balance of the 11 annas share. Further disputes arose and the parties executed an arbitration agreement in which the dispute between the parties was set out. Before the reference was submitted to the arbitrator the respondents applied to the High Court under s. 20 of the Arbitration Act for an order directing the agreement to be filed in the Court and for making a reference to the arbitrator appointed by the parties. The present appe!Jants· were impleaded as respondents. The court made an order referring the disputes to tJie 3 S.C.R. SUPRENIE COURT REPORTS 411 arbitrator named in the agreement. The arbitrator entered on the reference and after following the prescribed procedure he pronounced the award. The award was filed in the court where upon the appellants applied for setting it aside on various grounds the principal of which was that the award was.incomplete, in that all the disputes which had been referred for arbitration had not been disposed of by it. Tbe SingleJudge before whom the application came for hearing rejected the application and directed a decree to be passed in terms of the award. The two appeals filed by the appellants in the High Court, one from the order refusing to set aside the award and the other from the decree in terms of the award were dismissed. The present appeal is by way of special leave granted by this Court. The main contention raised was that the award was incomplete in as much as the award clid not dispose of three matters referred to the arbitrator. These three matters were (a) the award had given no direction regarding the rendition of accounts and profits with reference to a lease of the Glass Works Ltd. whcih the award had declared invalid (b) the award had failed to comply with the request, contained in the arbitration agreement, that the arbitrator should give directions as regards the future management of the Glass Co., (c) there was an allegation in the arbitration agreement as regards which evidence was led before the arbitrator, in relation as.to miappropriation of moneys by 6th respondent but the arbitrator had not specified in the award whether thi1 allegation had been made out or not and no direction had been given in regard to the matter. Held that a court should approach an award with a desire to support it if that is reasonably possible, rather than to destroy it by calling it illegal. Salby v. Whitbread and Oo .. [1917] I.K.B. 736 referred to. Unless the reference to arbitration specifically so requires the arbitrator is not bound to deal with each c1aim or matter separately, but can deliver a consolidated award. Re Brown and the Croydon Canal Co. ( 1839) 9 Ad & Ell. 522 : 112 E.R. 1309 and Jewell v. Chriate (1867) L.R. 2 C.P. 296, referred to. The silence of the arbitrator upon the subject placed before him means that the arbitrator has negatived such plea. Unless the contrary appears the court will presume that the 1961 Santa Sil• D1ii- v. Dhirm,Jta Nmh s,. Ssnl• Sit. D1lli •• Dli1111ir• N11• s,, 412 SUPR.El\lB COURT REPORTS [1984] VOL. award disposes of finally all the matters in dift'erencc, Where an a ward is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.