HEDE NAVIGATION LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to have the Award dated 26th September 1989 filed in this Court set aside.

(2.) By a Charterparty dated 15th April, 1985 the petitioner let its vessel 'M.V. SHANTA SHIBANI' to the respondent for carriage of carge of about 26,000 m.t. of Muriate of Potash from Aqaba to Kandla. On or about 8th November, 1985 the said vessel arrived at Kandla and was berthed on 17th December, 1985. The said vessel completed discharge at Kandla on 10th January, 1986. One Indian Potash Ltd. was receiver of the said cargo and as such, the said cargo was discharged by the said Indian Potash Ltd. and paid for the discharge. In respect of the said Charterparty and carriage of the said cargo, the petitioner had claims against the respondent and the respondent also had claims against the petitioner. The said Charterparty contained an agreement between the parties thereto to the effect that any dispute arising thereunder would be settled in accordance with the provisions of The Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short "The Act"). In view of the said arbitration agreement contained in the said Charterparty, the disputes which had arisen by and between the petitioner and the respondent were referred to arbitration and by its letter dated 6th January, 1987 the respondent appointed one captain R.K. Lal as its arbitrator. The petitioner appointed one K.M. Kamath as its arbitrator. The said Kamath having died during the pendency of arbitration, in his place one S.K. Mankad was appointed by the petitioner as its arbitrator. The Arbitrators so appointed made the Award dated 26th September, 1989 which has been filed in this Court. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to have the said Award set aside.

(3.) The said Award is a non-speaking Award. After considering the claims of the petitioner against the respondent and of the respondent against the petitioner, the Arbitrators disallowed and/or rejected the claims of the petitioner against the respondent and allowed the claims of the respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said Award alleging that there is an error apparent on the face thereof and that it has been improperly procured and is otherwise invalid. The petitioner has also challenged the said Award alleging that the Arbitrators failed to appreciate that the agreement whereby the said Indian Potash Ltd. conducted arbitration in the name of the respondent for its own benefit was illegal and void since, according to the petitioner, it amounted to mere name lending by the respondent in the absence of any assignment of subrogation.