IMPORTANT POINT
The view of the arbitrators that clause 14(ii) of contract excludes applicability of Section 73 of Contract Act is not erroneous. There is no mistake of fact or of law on the face of award hence High Court rightly refused to set it aside u/s. 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. SLP s against them have no substance and are dismissed with costs.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Art.136-SLP s against LPA s of High Court-High Court upholding single Judge-Single Judge refusing to set aside award u/s. 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940-No mistake of fact or of law was found apparent on the face of record-Dispute as to interpretation of clause 14(ii) of contract by Arbitration Tribunal-Tribunal holding it excludes applicability of Section 73 of Contract Act, 1872 as petitioner failed to establish any loss caused to them by respondent s failure to supply goods under the contract-Whether SLP s have any substance? (No)-Result-Same are dismissed with costs-Case law referred-(Arbiration Act, 1940-Section 30-Contract Act, 1872-Section 73).
       Held : The position in law has been noticed by this Court in Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1685, and Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore, 1967(1) SCR 105, to the effect that the arbitrator s award both on facts and law is final; that there is no appeal from his verdict; that the court cannot review his award and correct any mistake in his adjudication, unless the objection to the legality of the award is apparent on the face of it. In understanding what would be an error of law on the face of the award, the following observations in Champsey Bhara & Company v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd., L.R. 50 I.A. 324, a decision of the Privy Council, are relevant:-
       "An error in law on the face of the award means, in their Lordships view, that you can find in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto, as for instance a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his judgment, some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which you can then say is erroneous."
       In Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., 1999(9) SCC 449 : 1999(9) Supreme 427, this Court again examined this matter and stated that where the error of finding of fact having a bearing on the award is patent and is easily demonstrable without the necessity of carefully weighing the various possible view points, the interference in the award based on erroneous finding of fact is permissible and similarly, if an award is based by applying a principle of law which is patently erroneous, and but for such erroneous application of legal principle, the award could not have been made, such award is liable to be set aside by holding that there has been a legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. In the Russell on Arbitration (17th Edition), the position in law is thus stated :-
       "Where an arbitrator makes a mistake either in law or in fact in determining the matters referred, but such mistake does not appear on the face of the award, the award is good notwithstanding the mistake, and will not be remitted or set aside.
       The general rule is that, as the parties choose their own arbitrator to be the Judge in the disputes between them, they cannot, when the award is good on its face, object to his decision, either upon the law or the facts."
       In the light of this enunciation of law, we are of the view that unless the error of law sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the instant case is patent on the face of the award neither the High Court nor this Court can interfere with the award. The exercise to be done by examining clause 14(ii) of the contract entered into between the parties, construing the same properly and thereafter applying the law to it to come to a conclusion one way or the other, is too involved a process and it cannot be stated that such an error is apparent or patent on the face of the award. Whether under the context of the terms and conditions of a contract, a stipulation in the form and nature of clause 14(ii) operates as a special provision to the exclusion of Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act is a matter of appreciation of facts in a case, and when the decision thereon is not patently absurd or wholly unreasonable, there is no scope for interference by courts dealing with a challenge to the award. Therefore, we think, the view taken by the High Court in this matter is correct and calls for no interference. If as construed by the arbitrators that clause 14(ii) excludes applicability of Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act and the proposition of law stated by the arbitrators is correct, then Section 73 is not attracted to the case. In this view of the matter, we find absolutely no substance in these petitions and they are dismissed with costs of the respondents quantified at Rs. 5,000/- in each set. (Paras 9 to 14)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-On certain disputes having arisen between the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Sterilite Industries (India) in connection with the failure to supply certain goods the matter was referred to Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators. The petitioners made a claim in a sum of Rs. 70,28,572.05p as damages for breach of contract sustained by them on account of failure of the respondents to supply the entire material ordered from them. In addition to this claim for damages, interest on the said amount at 18% per annum for the period between May 9, 1989 to October 29, 1990 amounting to Rs. l8,62,571.55p was also made. Thus the total claim for damages and interest is in a sum of Rs. 88,91,143.16p.

2. It is stated that the contact for supply of goods was cancelled by the petitioners on 17, 1989 on the basis that the material which was not supplied by the respondents was procured by the petitioners from other suppliers at a price much higher than what was tendered by the respondents. The petitioners referred to various orders placed by them with different parties. The damages were thus claimed on the basis that the material which was not supplied by the respondents was actually purchased or procured by the petitioners and the damages were computed on the ground of higher price being required to be paid in order to make good the short supply by the respondents. The claim of the petitioners was contested by the respondents on several grounds.

3. The arbitrators raised two issues for consideration, which are as follows :-

(1) Whether the respondents have committed breach of contract or whether the claimants have committed breach of contract and on account of such breach it became impossible for the respondents to supply the requisite material under the contract?

(2) Whether under the terms of the contract the damages as claimed can be sustained?

4. On consideration of the relevant material and arguments placed before the arbitrators, per majority, they held that the breach of the contract is committed by the respondents and not by the petitioners. As regards damages claimed by the petitioners, they adverted to clause 14 of the contract to the effect that the purchaser has a right "to purchase upon such terms and in such a manner as he may deem appropriate equipment similar to that terminated" and then "the contractor will be liable to the purchaser for any additional cost for such similar equipment and/or for liquidated damages for delay as defined in Article 22 of the General Conditions until such reasonable time as may be required for the final supply of equipment" and construed the same as providing for (i) that the contractor is liable to reimburse the purchaser the additional cost of similar equipment which the purchaser has purchased and (ii) that in addition to that or alternatively, the contractor is liable for liquidated damages for delay until such reasonable time as may be required for the supply of equipment and the provision regarding liquidated damages was not attracted in the present case. Clause 14(ii) was thus held to be a special provision with regard to quantum of damages and the quantum is to be determined with reference to the additional cost involved in purchasing the equipment which the contractor had failed to deliver; that in view of this special provision the mode of computation of damages provided for under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act is not attracted; that, the measure of damages upon a breach of contract for sale of goods is the difference between the contract price and the market price on the date of breach and it is open to the parties to lay down a different rule; that the petitioners had failed to prove that consequent upon the failure of the respondents to supply the material in accordance with the contract, the petitioners had, after the cancellation of the contract, purchased any material in lieu of the mate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1397

Cases Referred (3)