IMPORTANT POINT
As arbitrator has confined his award within the framework of reference made to him it cannot be said that in assessing the damage he has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon him. The award is made rule of the Court.

Headnote:Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1988-Arbitration through Court-3 issues referred to Arbitrator-One of them was assessment of lost/stolen goods from Warehouse of Corporation-Arbitrator assessed it on the basis of "goods imported were of damaged condition"-Corporation took the plea that the damages, if any, are to be restricted to the declared value of goods in the agreement entered into between the corporation and the respondent through its clearing agent-Rejected by Arbitrator-Whether Arbitrator has acted in excess of jurisdiction and, therefore, the award was liable to be set aside? (No)-Appeal dismissed-Award made rule of the Court.
Held : We do not find any merit in this submission. Clauses (e), (f) and (g) of paragraph 44 have to be read together. What has been held by this Court is that the award made by an Arbitrator can be set aside if the Arbitrator acts beyond jurisdiction, and, to find out whether the Arbitrator has travelled beyond jurisdiction, it would be necessary to consider the agreement between the parties containing the arbitration clause and if the Arbitrator acts beyond the arbitration clause then it would be deemed that he has acted beyond jurisdiction. In order to determine whether the arbitrator has acted in excess of his jurisdiction what has to be seen is whether claimant can raise a particular claim before the arbitrator. If there is a specific term in the contract or the law which does not permit to the parties to raise a point before the arbitrator and if there is a specific bar in the contract to the raising of the point then the award passed by the arbitrator in respect thereof would be in excess of his jurisdiction. Neither of the conditions mentioned in clauses (f) and (g) referred to above stand satisfied to hold that the arbitrator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction. This Court on the agreement arrived at between the parties referred three points by way of disputes to be resolved between the parties and the arbitrator has limited his adjudication on the points of reference made to him. Counsel for the appellant could not point out as to in what way or manner the Arbitrator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction on the matters referred to him. According to us the Arbitrator has confined his award within the framework of the reference made to him and did not exceed the jurisdiction conferred upon him. For the reasons stated above we do not find any merit in the objection raised by the counsel for the appellant-Corporation. The award is made rule of the Court. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the award. No costs. (Paras 11 & 12)

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-Leave granted.

2. The West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ) and The Superintendent, Oil Installation Warehouse have filed this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order passed by the Calcutta High Court in favour of Sushil Kumar Kayan (hereinafter referred to as the respondent ).

3. In the year 1985 the respondent imported 338 coils weighing 1995.180 Metric Tons of Seconds/Defective Zink Aluminium Sheets from European Economic Community and declared the value of the goods at Rs. 2,440.76 per metric ton. The Customs Authorities assessed the value of the goods at Rs. 3995/- per metric ton. The goods were kept in the godown of the Corporation. Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court saying that there was no basis for assessing the value of goods at such an enhanced rate. A learned Single Judge issued an interim direction for the goods to be released to the respondent upon furnishing a bank guarantee for 50% of the disputed custom duty and the personal bond for the balance of the disputed duty. It appears that in the meantime, the Special Investigation Branch of the Customs House issued instructions to the Corporation not to deliver the goods to the respondent.

4. Another writ petition was filed in the High Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The respondent filed an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge. During the pendency of the appeal a theft took place in the warehouse Corporation and 18 coils weighing 107.152 Metric Tons, belonging to the respondent, were stolen. According to the respondent, the value of the stolen 18 coils and Rs. 25 lacs. on the other hand, the Corporation claimed Rs. 23 lacs as warehousing charges in respect of the entire goods including the goods which were stolen from the godown of the Corporation. The High Court passed an interim order in respect of the removal of the goods by the respondent from the warehouse of the Corporation. The respondent was directed to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 10 lacs towards the claim of the Corporation. The respondent furnished the security of Rs. lacs in the form of fixed deposit before the Registrar, Original Side, Calcutta. Later the High Court further directed the respondent to deposit Indira Vikas Patra for a sum of Rs. 8 lacs by way of security in respect of the claim of the Corporation after taking note of the fact that Rs. 10 lacs have already been deposited. In that connection the following direction was issued by the High Court.

"We, therefore, direct that Indira Vikas Patra of Rs. 8 lacs now lying with the Registrar, Original side, shall be retained by him. In order words, the fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 10 lacs and Indira Vikas Patra of Rs. 8 lacs shall be retained by the Registrar, Original side, till 30th November, 1992. If within the time specified above, the West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation institutes any proceeding in respect of their claim against the appellant, the said security shall continue to the Credit Court to such suit until further orders of the Court where such proceedings may be initiated by the said Corporation. If, however, no such proceedings are initiated, in that event, the said fixed deposit receipt and Indira Vikas Patra of Rs. 8 lacs shall be returned to the appellant by the Registrar, Original side. Inasmuch as the entire claim of the West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation is secured, they can have no further lien over and in respect of subject goods. Their lien, if any, will stand shifted to the aforesaid security."

5. The present appeal was filed against the aforesaid directions of the High Court.

6. On 26th November, 1993, this Court in an interim order came to the conclusion that the appellant Corporation being a public institution was entitled to the charges in respect of the goods kept by the respondent in their godown. Accordingly by way of an interim arrangement the Corporation was per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 613

IMPORTANT POINT As arbitrator has confined his award within the framework of reference made to him it cannot be said that in assessing the damage he has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon him. The award is made rule of the Court.

IMPORTANT POINT
As arbitrator has confined his award within the framework of reference made to him it cannot be said that in assessing the damage he has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon him. The award is made rule of the Court.