NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST PANAMBUR MANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN Vs. M/S. ANDERSON MARINE PVT. LTD., SHIP BUILDERS AND MARINE ENGINEERS ZORINTO, SANCALE POST CHICALIM GOA - 403710 AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the New Mangalore Port Trust, challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada. Mangalore, to the extent of con tinning the finding recorded by the Arbitrators in respect of Issues -1 to 7, 11 and 12.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.

(3.) THE learned District Judge has given the following reasons for setting aside the findings of the Arbitrators with regard to Issues -8, 9, 10. 13 to 20. It. reads as under: Section 31(3) of the Act clearly contemplates that, the Arbitrator must, give reasons in his award, unless the parties agreed to the contrary. In the present case on hand, there is a dispute between the parties regarding the claim is concerned and while considering the claim of the parties, the Arbitrators ought to have given the reasons. It is further important to note that mete giving of reasons would not meet: that the requirement of section 31(3) and. the reasons must be based on the material available to the Tribunal when the Tribunal has to give its reasons on consideration of the relevant, material, and ignoring the relevant material will not meet the requirement and the same would be the relevant basis. Finding based on the reasons not considering the material on record or on appreciation of the evidence, which the Court finds would totally perverse can be used to be not. a reasoned order. I have already pointed out that while considering the claim and counter claim the Arbitrators have not considered the material available on record and only a speculative observations are made that the plaintiff and defendants have claimed so much of amount and they are going to award some of the amounts, and. also not considered the material, on what basis they have claimed such amount and hence. I am of the opinion that the Arbitrators have failed to comply the provisions of section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and they failed in discharging their work as Arbitrators.