SANYUKT NIRMATA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following observations of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Rallia Ram. AIR 1963 SC 1685, have not been varied and still hold the field despite the passage of forty years, and numerous subsequent Judgments on the subject.

(2.) Acknowledging that the Arbitrator is the final Judge of facts, the Apex Court in State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Kalinoa Construction Co. (P)Ltd.. 1970 (2) SCC 861 held that the High Court erred in considering the matter as a court of appeal and in re-evaUiating the evidence and that it. further erred in recording a finding in reversal of the conclusions of the arbitrator. In Hindustan Iron Co. v. K. Shashikant & Co.. AIR 1987 SC 81 the Court held that the award of the Arbitrator ought not to be set aside for the reason that, in the opinion of the Court, the Arbitrator had not reached wrong conclusions or failed to appreciate the facts.

(3.) In Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. M/s. Jaaan Nath Ashok Kumar & Anr.. AIR 1987 SC 2316 the Court held that if the reasons appear per se to be not unreasonable and irrational the Court ought not to reappreciate the evidence. It approved the observations made in Mediterraneam & Eastern Export Co. Ltd. v. Fortress Fabrics Limited, (1948) 2 ALL ER 186, which are as follows - "A man in the trade who is selected for his experience would be likely to know and indeed to be expected to know the fluctuations of the market and would have plenty of means of informing himself or refreshing his memory on any point on which he might find it necessary so to do. In this case according to the affidavit of sellers they did take the point before the Arbitrator that the Southern African market has slumped. Whether the buyers contested that statement does not appear but an experienced Arbitrator would know or have the means of knowing whether that was so or not and to what extent and I see no reason why in principle he should be required to have evidence on this point any more than on any other question relating to a particular trade. It must be taken I think that in fixing the amount that he has, he has acted on his own knowledge and experience. The day has long gone by when the Courts looked with Jealousy on the Jurisdiction of the Arbitrators. The modern tendency is in my opinion more especially in commercial arbitrations, to endeavour to uphold awards of the skilled persons that the parties themselves have selected to decide the questions at issue between them. If an arbitrator has acted within the terms of his submission and has not violated any rules of what is so often called natural Justice the Courts should be slow indeed to set aside his award." That this is a well settled proposition of law was reiterated in the decision of the Apex Court in Coimbatore District Podu Thozillar Sangam vs. Balasubramania Foundary & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 2045. It was opined that it is only an error of law and not a mistake of fact, committed by the arbitrator, which is Justiciable In the Application /Objection before the Court. If no legal proposition emerges from a perusal of either the Award or any document annexed with the Award which Is erroneous, and the alleged mistakes or alleged errors, are only mistakes of fact. and If the Award Is made after giving adequate opportunity to the parties to place their grievances In the manner provided by the arbitration agreement, the Award is not amenable to the correction of the Court. Similar views were again expressed In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Indian Carbon ,ltd., (1988) 3 SCC 36; Jawahar Lal wadhwa & Anr. vs. Haripada Chakroberty. (1989) 1 SCC 76; Purl Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India. (1989) 1 SCC 411; M/s. Sudarsan Trading Co. vs. Government of Kerala & Anr.. (1989) 2 SCC 30; Food Corporation of India vs. Joginderpal Mohinderpal & Anr. AIR 1989 SC 1263 where even a plausible view taken by the Arbitrator was held not to be open to Court Interference, If the latter preferred a contrary or alternate view. ,