BAWA RAM AND CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CERTAIN disputes pertaining to contract CA. No. CF -JK -86/77 for provisions of accommodation for officers, J.C.Os and others at Jammu arose between the parties which were referred to the arbitration of Lt. Col. B.S. Sherawat. Petitioner filed an application under sections 14 and 17 of the Arb. Act for issuing a direction to the arbitrator to file the award, who filed the same before this Court notice of which was given to the parties. In compliance of that notice respondents objected to the award and filed an application under sec. 30 of the Arb. Act for setting aside the award on the ground that the arbitrator had completely ignored the conditions of the contract especially clause 11 and awarded the claims to the petitioner. It further mentioned in the application that the arbitrator misconduct himself in as much as by virtue of clause 70 on dispute was required to be referred to the arbitrator which had not been expressly agreed between the contractor and the respondents. The arbitrator had also no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the petitioner in respect of items 1 and 3 in terms of condition 11 of the general conditions of contract.

(2.) PETITIONER has filed objections denying the allegations of the respondents that the arbitrator in any manner misconducted himself or the proceedings. According to him the arbitrator decided the matter after recording evidence and taking into account the other documents.

(3.) IT is now well settled proposition of law that where an award is non -speaking it is not open for the court to investigate into it or to probe into the material facts involved in the case. It is not considered misconduct of the arbitrator if he gives an erroneous decision, whether on fact or law. The main contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that the arbitrator has granted the claims to the petitioner against the terms of the contract agreement. Such a question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in case, Union of India and anr. V/s M/s Telephone Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Civil 1st. Appeal No. 42 of 1979 decided on May 26, 1980 and it was held as under: - "The award of the arbitrator is non -speaking award as no reasons have been given in the award. It is well settled that if an arbitrator in deciding disputes between the parties before him does not record his reasons and does not indicate the principle of law on which he had proceeded, the award could not be considered vitiated on that account alone. The case of the petitioner -respondent before the arbitrator was that conditions 9 and 11 of the general conditions of contract IAFW -2249 did not justify suspension of the contract by the Union of India. The appellants had, however, maintained before the arbitrator that conditions 9 and 11 IAFW -2249 precluded the claim of the petitioner -respondent with respect to items 1, 2, 3 and 5. From a perusal of the claim and counter -claim it is obvious that the disputes between the parties which were referred to the arbitrator included interpretation of conditions 9 and 11 of IAFW -2249. The disputes which had been referred to the arbitrator were both of law as well as fact and he decided them according to his judgment." It thus comes out from the above said authority that the arbitrator is a judge selected by the parties and it is for him exclusively to interpret the facts as well as law. In A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1032 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the court has no jurisdiction to investigate into the merits of the case and to examine documentary and oral evidence on record for the purposes of finding out whether or not the arbitrator has committed an error of law and that the award of the arbitrator can be set aside on the ground of error of law on the face of the award only, when in the award or in a document incorporated with it, as for instance a note appended by the arbitrator stating reasons for his decision, there is found some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which is erroneous.