LexSTATE BANK OF INDIA versus RAM DAS AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
STATE BANK OF INDIA
v.
RAM DAS AND ANR.
OCTOBER 29, 2003
B
[V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.]
Arbitration Act, 1940 :
s. 30-Umpire-Misconduct-Umpirefiling award in civil court and
C appointing a lawyer to conduct the proceedings--Held, if the umpire was
advised to file the award in civil court and appoint a lawyer to conduct
the proceedings, he did commit a mistake where/or adverse comments were
made by High Court, but _the same cannot be said to be an act of bias-
No such act would amount to misconduct within the meaning of s.30.
D
E
International Airports Authority of India v. K.D. Eali and Anr.,
[1988] 2 sec 360, held inapplicable.
Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation and Anr. v. Encon
Builders (!) (P) Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 418, referred to.
Arbitration :
Plea of bias against umpire-Raised for the first time before Supreme
Court-Maintainability of-Umpire filing award in civil court and
F appointing a lawyer to conduct the proceedings-Award made rule of
court-Appeal before High Court-Plea of bias against umpire not raised
before civil court nor before High Court-High Court, in view of amendment
made ins. 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940, by A.P. Amendment Act I of 1990,
did not find sufficient the reasons assigned by the umpire for his award,
set it aside and remitted the matter back to the umpire for giving reasons-
G High Court also adversely commented on the conduct of the umpire for
himself filing award in court and appointing a lawyer for conducting the
proceedings-Appeal before Supreme Court-Appellant for the firsNime
taking the plea of bias against the umpire for himself filing the award in
civil court-Held, High Court did not set aside the award on the ground
H of any misconduct on the part of the umpire-Therefore, the observations
1142
(}
•
STATE BANK OF INDIA r. RAM DAS AND;ANR.
1143
/
made by High Court must be held to have been ,nade only for future A
guidance of arbitrators-Appellant never questim;zed the conduct of umpire
during arbitration proceedings-No case of p7i/on{lf~<a~, was made ~~t
against arbitrator-Where a party despite knowledge~oflhe defect in the
jurisdiction or bias or malice of an arbitrator participated in the proceedings
without any kind of objection by his conduct it disentitles itself to raise such B
a question in the subsequent proceedings-The appellant despite numerous
opportunities made available to it, although it was aware of the defect in
the award of the Umpire, at no stage made out any case of bias against
the Umpire-The appellant cannot be permitted to raise question of bias
for the first time before Supreme Court-Arbitration Act, I 940-ss. I 4(1) C
and 17-A.P. Amendment Act I .of 1990.
S. Pratap Singh v. The State of Punjab, 11964) 4 SCR 733, cited.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos. 4542-
4544 of 1998.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.3.98 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 5383; 5367 and C.M.A. No. 1805 of 1994 .
WITH
. " .
C.A. Nos. 4545-4547 of 1998.
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, San jay Kapur and Rajiv Kapur for the Appell:mt
in C.A. Nos. 4542-44/98.
M.L. Verma, S. V. Deshpande, Mrs. Anuradha Rac;togi for the Appellant
in C.A. Nos. 4545-4547/98.
R.F. Nariman, S.V. Deshpande, Mrs. Anuradha Rastogi for the·
Respondents in C.A. No. 4542-44/98.
The Order of the Court was delivered :
Before us there are two sets of appeals, one, C:A. Nos. 4542-4544/
I 998 at the instance of State Bank of India and other, C.A. Nos. 4545-454 7 I
E
F
G
I 998 at the instance of the respondent-Contractor.
H
1144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
On 6th of October, 1978, the State Bank of India entered into an
agreement with the respondent herein (Contractor) for constructing Local
Head Office building at Hyderabad. Clause 36 of the agreement provided
for resolution of disputes by arbitration. It is not disputed that in the year
1982 the Contractor completed the constructions in tenns of the contract.
B However, certain disputes arose between the parties as a result whereof the
matter was referred to arbitration. Mr. MU Hattikuddur was chosen by the
Arbitrators as an Umpire. On 8.8.1984 the Umpire gave an award wherein
four claims of the Contractor were allowed in full, seven claims were
allowed in part and 15 claims were rejected. A total sum of Rs. 15.85 lacs
C were found to be payable by the appellant to the Contractor under the said
. award. The Umpire, however, also reExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.