SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(AP) 114

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.A.SWAMI, PANDURANGA RAO
State Of A.P. - Appellant
Versus
R.V.Rajaram - Respondent
Decided On : 03-16-88

An award can only be set aside where there is an error on its face and the error must be of law and not of fact.

Headnote:

ARBITRATION - AWARD - SETTING ASIDE - GROUNDS - ERROR OF LAW APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - NON-SPEAKING AWARD - VALIDITY.

Fact of the Case:

The State of Andhra Pradesh and the concerned Executive Engineer entered into a contract with Rayanam for the formation of an earth-dam. Disputes arose between the parties, and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator passed a consolidated award granting a sum of Rs. 19.39 lakhs towards claims 1 and 3 to 11. The Contractor filed a suit to make the award a rule of the Court, and the department filed a petition to set aside the award. The trial court decreed the suit and dismissed the petition.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the award was not vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Court observed that the arbitrator need not give reasons and where the arbitrator does not disclose his mind it is not possible to postulate what the reasons could be. The Court also observed that all the errors pointed out by the appellant were only errors of fact and not errors of law.

Issues: Whether the award was vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the award was not vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Court observed that the arbitrator need not give reasons and where the arbitrator does not disclose his mind it is not possible to postulate what the reasons could be. The Court also observed that all the errors pointed out by the appellant were only errors of fact and not errors of law.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and the C.R.P.

AMARESWARI, J.

( 1 ) THE appeal and the c. R. P. arise out of Arbitration proceedings. The State of Andhra pradesh and the concerned Executive engineer are the appellants. C. M. A. No. 1152 of 1986 is filed against the decree in 0. P. No. 312 of 1985 on the file of the second Additional Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad making the award a rule of the Court under Section 14 of the Arbitration act. C. R. P. No. 2728 of 1986 is filed against the order in o. S. No. 915 of 1985 dismissing the petition to set aside the award under Section 30 of the arbitration Act.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are one sri Rayanam entered into a contract on 24-1-1981 with the state of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Superintending Engineer and others for formation of earth-dam in gorge portion from chainage 3360 to 3380 M of Raiwada reservoir Project near devarapalli Village, Chodavaram taluk, Visakhapatnam District. Some disputes arose between the parties. The matter was referred to arbitration as per the Clause in the agreement. The Contractor made as many as 11 claims claiming various amounts. The arbitrator passed a consolidated award granting a sum of Rs. 19. 39 lakhs towards claims 1 and 3 to 11. Claim No. 2 was withdrawn and the same was not taken into account by the Arbitrator.

( 3 ) THE Contractor filed O. S. No. 915 of 1985 to make the award a rule of the Court and the department filed 0. P. No. 312 of 1985 to set aside the award. The learned Second Additional Judge, city Civil Court. Hyderabad decreed the suit and dismissed the o. P. against which the above c. M. A. and C. R. P. are filed by. the department.

( 4 ) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant-department is that the decree of the civil Court confirming the award discloses an error apparent on the face of the record and hence is liable to be set aside.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, it is contended for the respondent- contractor that the scope of the civil Court under the Arbitration act is very limited and since the arbitrator has not given any reasons it is not open to this Court to go behind the award and look for the reasons. It is further urged that there is no error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law.

( 6 ) TO decide this controversy, it is necessary to refer to Section 30 of the Arbitration act which is as follows:-"30. Grounds for setting aside award: An award shall not "be set aside except on one or more of the following grounds namely; (a) that an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself or the proceedings; (b) that an award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration or after arbitration proceedings have become invalid under Section 35; (c) that an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. "the language of Section 30 is couched in negative terms and unless the grounds metnioned in sub-sections (a) (b) or (c) thereof, exists, no award can be set aside. Clause (a) refers to misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. Clause (b) deals with a case where an award is made after the arbitration proceedings are superseded or have become invalid under Section 35. The most important and relevant for our purpose is Clause (c) which says that the award can be set aside, if it is improperly procured or otherwise invalid. The words "otherwise invalid" occurring in clause (c) had been the subject matter of judicial scrutiny on several occasions and it was held that the award can be set aside only if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The scope of jurisdiction of the civil Court under Section 30 is therefore limited. The law is well settled on this aspect.

( 7 ) IN Union of India Vs. Bungo Steel Furniture (1) A. I. R. 1967, Supreme Court, Page 1032 the Supreme Court held that the award 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 in it, there is found some legal proposition which is the basi

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top