LexSTATE OF ORISSA & ORS. versus LALL BROTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. A v. LALL BROTHERS AUGUST 25, 1988 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AN,D S. RANGANATHAN JJ.] B Arbitration Act 1940: Sections 14, 17, 30 and 33-Unreasoned award-No ground to set aside award-Lump sum award-Not bad per ~e. The respondent-firm was entrusted with the construction work of a 'Minor Irrigation Project' by the State of Orissa-Petitioner. The work was due to be completed on 3rd August, 1977 but it was actually completed on 31st March, 1978. Disputes arose in regard to the pay- ment for the work. The respondent-contractor raised certain claims and gave notice for th~ appointment of an arbitrator according to the contract. On 22nd April, 1980, the Chief Engineer appointed an arbitrator but, on an application by the respondent, the Sub-Judge removed him and appointed another arbitrator. Before the arbitrator, the respondent filed its claim along with some documents and the petitioner filed its counter statement. No · further evidence was adduced and on 23rd June, 1982, the arbitrator gave a lump sum award for Rs. 14.67 lakhs with interest at 9% from 30th April, 1978. On llth July, 1983, the Sub-Judge made the award rule of the Court with the modification that the interest was directed to run from 23rd June, 1982, instead of 30the April, 1978. . The High Court allowed the appeal in part and deleted the direc- tion regarding future interest awarded by the arbitrator and modified by the Subordinate Judge. c D E F 1n the appeal by special leave to this Co'!rt, it was contended on G behalf of the State-petitioner that the award in the instant case was· an unreasoned award and a lump such amount was awarded without specifying the amount awarded on particular grounds: Dismissing.the special leave petition, H 579 A B 580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) Supp. 2 S.C.R. HELD: I. The fact that there is an unreasoned award, is no ground to set aside an award .. L,ump sum award is not bad per se, as such. [583A] In the instant case, the award contained the recitals to the effect that the arbitrator had gone through the claim statement, counter' statement and documents produced before him and heard the represen- tations made by the parties. There is no error of law apparent on tbe face of the award. There was no misconduct on the part of the arbitrator or in the conduct of the proceedings. [582G] Firm Madan/a/ Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills ltd., C Indore, [1967] 1 SCR 105; Union of India v. Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. ltd., [1967] 1 SCR 324 and Allen Berry & Co (P) ltd. v. Union of India, New Delhi, [1971) 3 SCR 282, referred to. 2. An award is conclusive as a judgment between the parties aitd the court is entitled to set aside an award only if the arbitrator has D misconducted himself, or where an award has been inproperly pro- cured, or is otherwise invalid under Sections 30 and 35 of the Arbitra- tion Act 1940. [583B] 3. An award may be set aside by the Court on the ground of error on the face of the award, but an award is not invalid merely IE because by a process of inference and argument it may be demons- trated that the arbitrator has committed some mistake in arriving at his conclusion. [583C] 4. It is not open to the Court to speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator, as to what impelled him to arrive at his F conclusions. [583D) Champ5ey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Ba/loo Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd .• L.R. 50 I.A. 324; Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth & Ors. v. Chintamanrao Ba/aji & Ors., [1964] 5 SCR 480 referred to. G 5. If a question of law was not specifically referred to the arbitrator his decision is not final. [583F] Continental Construction Co. ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [ 1988] 3 sec 82 distinguished. H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7396 of 1987. • STATE OF ORISSA v. LALL BROS. [MUKHARJI, J.] 581 ·; I - - From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.1987 of the Orissa High A Court in M.A. No. 378 of ·i983. M.K. Banerjee, Solicitor General, R.K. Mehta and Miss Mona Mehta for the Petitioners. . G.L. Sanghi, A.P. Jena and Vinoo Bhagat for the Respondent. The.Judgment ofihe Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an application for leave B to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from the decision. and judgment of the High.Court of Orissa, dated 8th April, 1987. By the· C said judgment the High Court had allowed the appeal _in part and modified the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.