EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD Vs. DEEP SIKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : The primary challenge to the award is on the ground that the arbitral tribunal lacked authority in taking up the reference. The present challenge is under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The respondent is not represented even at the second call. The petitioner has issued several notices to the respondent but it appears that the respondent firm may not be existence and it does not carry on any business at 2, Church Lane. The petitioner will retain the notices issued to the respondent for future reference. On the merits of the award, the petitioner says that the arbitrator failed to indicate any reasons as to why the petitioner's counter-claim was dismissed. The petitioner also assails the award in favour of the contractor. On a reading of the award, it appears that sufficient basis has been disclosed in allowing a part of the claim. The petitioner cannot now question the basis for the award by referring to the evidence that was before the arbitrator. On the basis of the reasons given in support of the award, to the extent it has been allowed, there is no ground for the petitioner to challenge the same.

(2.) As to the petitioner's challenge in the arbitrator having discredited the entirety of the counter-claim it appears that no reasons have been furnished. The 1940 Act did not mandate reasons to be given by the arbitrator. The petitioner cannot demonstrate that the agreement between the parties obliged the arbitrator to furnish reasons in support of any decision. In such view of the matter, the challenge, both on the merits of the amount awarded in favour of the respondent and on the dismissal of the counter-claim, appears unmeritorious.

(3.) That leaves the primary question that has been urged by the petitioner: the issue of jurisdiction. The petitioner contends that since the petitioner's registered office is in Sanctoria in the district of Burdwan and since the entirety of the work was to be performed in some coal mine thereabouts and there are no coal mines in the town of Calcutta, the respondent's petition under section 20 of the 1940 Act could not have been filed in this Court. The petitioner says that this Court had erroneously assumed jurisdiction in the section 20 proceedings and, consequently, the order for setting up the arbitral tribunal and all proceedings before the arbitrator should be seen as a nullity. The argument is unacceptable and the petitioner is precluded from urging such matter.