IMPORTANT POINT
The arbitrator cannot enlarge the scope of reference unilaterally and make in a non-speaking award, a lump sum amount of all claims, after enlarging his jurisdiction on non-accepted or objected claims.
S. Name of the Award Interest Amount No. Arbitrator Rs.    Rs.    Rs.
 
1. R.P. Ahuja 4,70,000.00 78,129.45 5,48,129.45
 
2. O.P. Gupta 7,00,974.00 7,604.96 7,08,578.96
 
3 T. Rajaram 23,78,100.00 23,34,501.00 47,12,601.60
 
4. Brig. D.R. Kathuria 78,90,570.00 38,40,653.88 1,17,31,223.00
 
2. The dispute as regards hire charges of equipment loan by Farakka Barage Project was referred to Goyal Committee for rationalisation. On submission of its report and in furtherance thereof the respondent by letter dated August 8, 1984 had claimed for reference to the arbitration thus :
"And whereas M/s. Tarapore & Co. having lone back been refunded the excess hire charges recovered earlier, but having became refundable on the basis of said Goyal Committee Report, in our case the excess recovered amount and now refunded to us despite repeated, written as well as oral requests and demands in this respect."
[emphasis supplied]

JUDGMENT

K. Ramaswamy, J.-This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated February 12, 1992 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A.T. No. 1390. The respondent had entered into an agreement in 1968-69 for excavation of Feeder canal from RD. 68.00 to RD. 97.00. During the course of the execution of the wrok certain disputes had arisen between the respondent and the appellant. The disputes were referred from time to time to arbitration. This is the 5th arbitration in the instalment. Details of previous four arbitrations are as under :

3. In furtherance thereof, by proceedings dated November 18, 1984, the General Manager, Farakka Barrage Project appointed T. Raja Ram as the sole arbitrator to settle the disputes. After entering into the reference on December 12, 1984, admittedly the respondent laid claim for the refund of hire charges which was disputed by counter-statement by the appellant. Later the respondent laid further claims on March 6, 1985 for Rs. 1,68,000/- towards repairs on departmental equipments; Rs. 1,38,600/- towards refund of expenses on security watch and ward; Rs. 28,12,085.33 towards final bill of the firm; Rs. 95,60,653.10 towards part interest and the amount of claim in addition to the refund of hire charges was Rs. 32,45,538.27. The appellant in its statement had objected to unilateral enlargement of the reference. The arbitrator awarded by a non-speaking award dated August 18, 1987, a sum of Rs. 35,72,550/ - with interest at 15% per annum from July 1, 1976 or the date of the payment of decree whichever was earlier.

4. The appellant filed Misc. Case No. 95/87 on April 8, 1988 under Section 30(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 [for short, the Act ], questioned the award contending that the claim was barred by limitation; the arbitrator had no power to enlarge the scope of the arbitration and he had no power to award interest at higher rate without any claim before it. The Assistant District Judge, Murshidabad by his order dated January 19, 1991 set aside the award upholding these contentions. On appeal, in the impugned order the High Court set aside the order of the civil Court holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the award warranting setting aside of the award. It directed the civil Court to take steps for passing a decree in terms of the award as expeditiously as possible not later than four months. Thus this appeal by special leave.

5. Since Shri Goswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has not pressed the bar of limitation for our consideration, it is unnecessary for us to go into that question. Only two questions have been canvassed, viz., the power of the arbitrator to unilaterally enlarge the scope of the reference and the power to award the amount in a non-speaking award and the rate of interest. The question, therefore, is : whether the arbitrator has jurisdiction and power to unilaterally enlarge the reference ? As extracted above, the specific demand and acceptance by the Manager of Farakka Barage Project was to refer the dispute of refund of hire charges pursuant to the report of the Goyal Committee. That was acceded to and reference to T. Raja Ram was made for arbitration on November 18, 1984 and claim in that behalf was duly made. On March 6, 1985 claims were laid by the respondent for arbitration. They were objected to by the respondent. The question emerges : whether the arbitrator has power to unilaterally enlarge the reference and adjudicate the claims ? It is seen that impugned award is a non-speaking award. Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for the respondent contended that the appellant having participated before the arbitrator and had an award unfavourable to them, could not question invalidity thereafter. The appellant had participated in the proceedings before the arbitrator with full knowledge of these facts. The conduct on the part of the appellant amounts to acquiescence to the power and jur