ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a petition moved under section 14 of the Arbitration Act by M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Dr. Bakshish Singh, Additional Adviser, Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, who acted as sole arbitrator inter-se parties with respect to their disputes arising under A/T No. SV-7/101 77/168/3-6-69/1/783 dated 15-1-1970, filled his award dated 30-12-1978 in Court. Notices of this filing were issused to the parties. The Ashok Leyland then filed objections against the award which were controverted by the Union of India. They resulted in framing of the following issues:-

(2.) A perusal of the award shows that it Is a non-speaking one and the claim of the Ashok Leyland Ltd. is alowed for Rs. l,79,666.00 . No reasons are given, nor any evidence discussed for arriving at this conclusion. The award also does not make reference to any document or make that as part of the award. Normally, therefore, the Court is precluded from giving into the merits of the decision or probing into the mental process by which the learned arbitrator arrived at his conclusion. The arbitrator being judge of both questions of fact and law, his decision is not open to purivew before the Court. It is only when a mistake apparent on the face of the award exists that the Court can be justified to interfere. It Is also well settled that while hearing objections against an award, the Court cannot assume to itself the role of an appellate authority, or embark upon reviewing the pros and cons of the decision.

(3.) THE question to be considered is whether the leraned arbitrator was conscious while giving his award of this circumstance, and when the awarded Rs. l,79,666.00 he was including the amount of Rs. 31,609.00 in the same, and whether it was with reference to one chassis or 105 chassis. THE answer to this can only be given by the arbitrator. Since the matter involved is of considerable magnitude, I am inclined to remit back the award to the learned arbitrator for considering this aspect of the controversy. THE objections are, therefore, partly allowed, and the award is remitted back to the learned arbitrator for adjudication afresh in the light of observation made above.