PHANI BHUSAN KANUNGO Vs. CUTTACK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act at the instance of thePlaintiff -contractor against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack, in Title Suit No. 423 of 1982 who by the impugned judgment rejected the plaintiff's prayer to make the award of the arbitrator a rule of the Court and allowed the objection filed by the defendants under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act and has set aside the award dated 27 -7 -1982.

(2.) THE plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Cuttack Development Authority, respondent No. 2 in the present appeal, for the work 'Development of plots in Group -II and Il -A of Sikharpur Housing Accommodation Scheme, Cuttack' and executed the said work. Disputes arose between the parties in respect of some claims made by the plaintiff and an arbitrator was appointed by the Subordinate judge in Miscellaneous Case No. 160 of 1980 to arbitrate upon the said disputes. In the proceedings before the arbitrator, the plaintiff -contractor filed a claim to the tune of Rs.9,92,949. 23 with interest thereon. Respondent No. 2 filed objection before the arbitrator denying the entire claim. Parties led evidence before the arbitrator both oral and documentary. The claimant produced several documents and also examined himself as a witness. On behalf of the respondents only two measurement books were produced. The arbitrator also had inspected the work -site in presence of both the parties. Thereafter the counsel for parties were heard at length and ultimately the arbitrator passed the award. By the impugned award, the arbitrator allowed the claim items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and disallowed the claim items 1 and 7. The award is a non -reasoned and non -speaking award, The plaintiff thereafter filed an application before the Subordinate Judge for making the award a rule of the Court and the defendants filed objection purporting to be under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award. The Subordinate Judge by the impugned Judgment dated 17 -6 -1985 has rejected the plaintiff's application and Allowed the objection of the defendants and has set aside the award of the arbitrator.

(3.) THE power of a Court to interfere with an award of the arbitrator has been discussed in several authorities, of the Supreme Court and of this Court and it no longer remains res integra. The Court possesses a very limited jurisdiction as circumscribed by the provisions of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to Interfere with an award of the arbitrator. Since the arbitrator is a tribunal selected by the parties, the adjudication made by the arbitrator is generally considered binding between the parties. It is too well -settled; now that it is not open to the Court to interfere with an award when there is no error of law apparent on the face of the award. The Court cannot attempt to probe the mental process by which the arbitrator has reached his conclusion where it is not disclosed by the award itself. In other words, if the award discloses the reasons on which the arbitrator has arrived at his conclusion, then such conclusion can be examined by the Court to find out whether the reasons of the arbitrator in arriving at such conclusion are justified or not, but where no reasons have been assigned by the arbitrator to arrive at his conclusion, it is not open for the Court to determine the same by entering into an area of surmise or conjecture. It is not necessary for me to note, the several authorities oh the point. It would be sufficient to take note of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth and others v. Chintamenrao Balaji and others, AIR 1965 S. C. 214, on this score where it was held.