UNION OF INDIA versus JAI NARAIN MISRA

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 588 · Decided: 31-10-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
JAi NARAIN MISRA 
October 31, 1968 
(S. M. SrKRI AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Arbitration-Award when vague and uncertain-Part of a1vard based 
on mistake may be struck out if separable. 
The respondent, a building contractor, entered into a contract with the 
Government of India for the constn1ction of certain flats. 
On disputes 
'" arising, they \Vere referre_d to an arbitrator. 
The 
arbitrator 
made 
an 
award and directed certain sums to be paid by the Union of India to the 
respondent. 
Rupees twenty-two thousand two hundred and ninety two, 
annas five were to be paid as the amount due: to tbe respondent as calculat-
ed by the Union of India. 
Rupees six thousand were to be paid as the 
amount of se,curity deposit made by the respondent with the Union of 
India. 
The third item was mentioned as Rupees seventy nine thousand 
three hundred and thirty nine. 
The total amount payable was mentioned 
as Rupees one lakh seven thousand six hundred and thirty one, annas five. 
The respondent made an application for modifying the award and for re-
mitting it to the arbitraior for reconsideration. The Second Civil Judge, 
Kanpur dismissed the objections and pronounced judgment according to 
the. award. The appellant filed an appeal against the order under s. 39 
of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The High Court allowed the appeal and 
set aside the award on. the ground that it was vague and uncertain. 
Ac-
cording to the High Court it was not clear why the arbitrator awarded 
the first item of Rs. 22,292/5/- ·and the third item of Rs. 79,339/- sepa-
rately. 
Since the arbitrator found only the first item of Rs. 22,922/5 /-
to be due to the respondent, the High Court did not find it clear whether 
he intended also to award the 3rd item of Rs. 79,339/- to the respondent. 
As the dispute related to 29 items of claims and counter-claims the arbitra-
tor, according to High Court, should have made an ·award in respect of 
a11 the items separately or in combination or should ·have made a lump 
sum award in respect of all the items. Against the order of the High 
Court the Union of India appealed to this Court with certificate. 
HELD : The reasoning of the High Court could not be accepted. 
(i) The award on the face of it professed to be of and concerning 
all matters submitted for arbitration. 
In respect of all such matters the 
arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 1,07,631/6/- to the respondent. 
This 
amount was made of three sums separately mentioned in the award. 
On 
the record there was nothing to show that the award was not intelligible 
to the parties. [590 G] 
· 
The court leans to\vards. the construction that the award is certain. 
Or. 
the evidence item No. 1 represented the sum admitted the sum due to the 
respondent and item No. 3 represented the additional sum found by the 
arbitrator to be due to him. [590 HJ 
(ii) The arbitrator is not bound to give an award on each point. 
He 
can give his award on the whole case. An ·arbitrator may award one 
sum generally i11 respect of all money claims submitted to him, unless the 
submission requires him to award separately on some one or more of them. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
' 
G 
H 
..... ... 
• 
• 
' 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
UNION OF INDIA v. J. N. MISRA (Bachawat, J.) 
589 
The arbitrator can lawfully make an award of a sum admitted to be due 
and a lump sum in respec~ of the remaining claim . 
AS the final award in favour of the respondent professed to be made 
of and concerning all the matters referred to him, it must be presumed 
that in making it the arbitrator had taken. into consideration all the claims 
and counter claims. 
The award must be held to be a final and certain 
determination of all the disputes referred .. [591 C, DJ 
(iii) The mention of the second item of Rupees six thousand in the 
award was a mistake. This part of the award being clearly separable must 
be struck out. The award of the sum of Rupees six thousand was to the 
advantage of the respondent and the court could not set aside an award 
at the instance of a party who had not suffered any injury. [591 F] 
Mays and Anr. v. Cannel 24 Law Journal Q.B. 41, 45; Ghulam Khan 
v. Mohammad Hassan I.LR. 29 Cal. 167, 186 (P.C.); 
Whiteworth v. 
Hulse (1866) LR. 1 Ex. 251; Harrison v. Creswick (1853) 13 C.B. 399, 
Jewell v. Christie (1867) 2 C.B. 296 and Narsingh Narain Singh v. 
A;odhya Prasad Singh, (1912) 15 C.L.J. 110, 113, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal No. 31 of 
1

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