BHARAT CONDUCTORS PVT LTD Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Miscellaneous first Appeals arise out of a common order dated 15-12-2000 passed in arbitration Case No. 40/94. By that order, the court rejected the petition filed by the Arbitrator under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act of 1940 (now repealed) and remitted back the matter to the Arbitrator for redetermination. While the Appellant in the first appeal is aggrieved by the rejection of the petition of the appellant by the Arbitrator, the Appellant in the second appeal is aggrieved by the remand order.

(2.) MR. Chandranath Ariga, learned Counsel for the appellant in the first appeal relied upon the decision reported in air 1963 SC 1677 (Smt. Santa Sila Devi VS. Dhirendra Nath Sen)and contended that the finding of the learned Judge of the Civil Court that non-consideration of Issues 14, 15 and 16 by the Arbitrator and passing the Award amounts to "misconduct" under Section 30 of the Arbitration act, is wholly untenable in law. On this ground alone, according to the learned Counsel, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. The Counsel further relied upon (1992) 4 SCC 217 (Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir) wherein misconduct is explained. Another decision relied upon by the Counsel is (1999) 3 SCC 533 (Kundale and Associates Vs. Konkan Hotels (P) Ltd.)wherein it is held that the award cannot be set aside merely on the ground that it contain no reasons. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that the award of the arbitrator should not have been set aside by the Civil Court in the instant case.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Mr. Abhinav. R for the appellant in the second appeal supported the findings recorded by the civil Court at para 8 of the order holding that Issues 14, 15 and 16 goes to the root of the matter and non-considering and answering them amounts to non-consideration of the case. Consequently, the real dispute is not determined and therefore it for the tribunal to set out only its view of what occurred, but also to make it clear that it has considered any alternative version and has rejected it. Even if several reasons lead to the same result, the tribunal should still set them out. The tribunal is not expected to recite at great length communications exchanged or submissions made by the parties, nor to analyse the law and the authorities. It is sufficient that the tribunal should explain what its findings are and how it reached its conclusions. " the Counsel repudiated the submissions made by Mr. Ariga and submitted that the Arbitrator on 17-7-1992 held that Issues 14, 15 and 16 would be decided after recording evidence. Having held so, it was his duty to consider the said issues and he should have recorded a finding thereon. The Counsel submits that as rightly pointed-out by the learned Civil Judge, failure to do so amounts to misconduct and therefore the said finding do not warrant interference by this Court.