IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SOUMEN SEN, J.
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA – Petitioner
VS.
GOPAL CHANDRA MUKHERJEE – Respondent
A.P. No.167 of 2005
Decided on : 14-09-2016
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. GOPAL CHANDRA MUKHERJEE - ARBITRATION - SETTING ASIDE OF AWARD - ARBITRATOR'S AWARD HELD TO BE WITHOUT EVIDENCE, PERVERSIVE AND UNREASONED - AWARD SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The present petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside an arbitral award dated 23rd February, 2005, passed by the sole arbitrator. The petitioner had appointed the respondent as its agent for the purpose of storing food grains of FCI. The respondent claimed compensation for wrongful withholding of the godown for the period from 1st June, 1997 to 30th November, 2000 and for expenses incurred by the respondent as ex-agent for running the establishment of the godown during the said period.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the arbitrator's award was without evidence, perverse and unreasoned. The Court noted that the arbitrator had failed to take into consideration several relevant factors, including the fact that the respondent had refused to release goods without payment of their bills, that the petitioner could have delivered the articles to the tenderers from its godown, and that the claimant on their own had admitted that a large portion of the godown had remained unutilized since October, 1988.
Issues: 1. Whether the arbitrator's award was without evidence, perverse and unreasoned? 2. Whether the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the dispute?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An arbitration award can be set aside if it is found to be without evidence, perverse or unreasoned. 2. The Court will consider the following factors in determining whether an award is perverse: (i) a finding based on no evidence, or (ii) an Arbitral Tribunal takes into account something irrelevant to the decision which it arrives at; or (iii) ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision. 3. The Court will not interfere with an arbitrator's construction of a contract unless it is perverse. 4. A possible view by the arbitrator on facts has necessarily to pass muster as the arbitrator is the ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be relied upon when he delivers his arbitral award.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and set aside the arbitral award.
Soumen Sen, J.
1. This is an application for setting aside of an award dated 23rd February, 2005. The respondent was the claimant.
2. The arbitration proceeding arose out of a reference made on the basis of an order dated 13th March, 2003 passed in AP No.177 of 2001 in an application filed by the respondent under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitrator entered reference on 31st May, 2003.
3. In the arbitration proceeding, the petitioner has made a claim for a sum of Rs.1,30,63,295/- by way of damages or compensation on account of wrongful withholding of the claimant’s godown for the period from 1st June, 1997 to 30th November, 2000 and a sum of Rs.2,87,960/- by way of damages or compensation on account of expenses incurred by the claimant as ex-agent for running the establishment of the godown during the said period.
4. The respondent/claimant was appointed as agent of the petitioner under an agreement dated 2nd June, 1975 for the purpose of storing food grains of FCI up to a capacity of 12000 M.T. on the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement.
5. The claimant in terms of the agreement had taken godowns on rent at 493/B, G.T. Road, Shibpur, Howrah in the premises of Bengal Jute Mill measuring an area of 73000 Sq.ft. with high ceiling, adequate for storage of 12000 M.T. of food grains at a time. In pursuance of the said agreement, the claimant deposited with the respondent a sum of Rs.10,000/- as security deposit. The claimant was required to handle and receive only such consignments and number of bags of food grains as were allotted by the petitioner. The claimant was not authorized to store any food grain until and unless allotment was made by the respondent in favour of the plaintiff. In pursuance of the agreement diverse quantities of bags of food grains of various sizes were allotted to the claimant from time to time and upon receipt of allotment or authorization from FCI, the claimant removed such food grains from the Railway siding and stored the same at the godown for subsequent delivery to the persons authorized and nominated by the FCI after receiving dispatch instructions issued by the FCI to the claimant. It was alleged that on 10th October, 1988, a quantity of only 1900 M.T. of food grains was lying and stored at the godown, and the major portion of the godown remained unutilized. By reason of non-allotment of food grains by the Food Corporation of India, the claimant was suffering loss and damage day after day, particularly because the petitioner did not permit the claimant to store goods of other parties, so long food grains belonging to FCI were still in the godown. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the claimant by a letter dated 2nd November, 1991 terminated the said agreement after giving two months prior notice to the respondent. In terms of the said notice, the agreement would stand terminated on 2nd January, 1992. The claimant in the meantime invoked the arbitration clause of the agreement, that is, Clause 41 of the Agreement before the learned Assistant District Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah. In such proceeding an order was passed on 19th February, 1990 appointing an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties. The claims of the claimant in the said arbitration proceedings against the respondent was for the period from 2nd June, 1975 to 31st May, 1997.
6. The claimant alleged that the said godown was without any operation since 1991 but since then the respondent did not remove the stock including the damaged rice for several years and the claimant was unable to use the said godown. The claimant by a letter dated 18th May, 1998 requested the respondent for taking necessary steps for lifting the said stocks from the godown of the claimant. Despite the receipt of the said letter, the respondent neither took steps in terms thereof, nor gave any reply thereto. The said request was again repeated by a letter dated 25th September, 1999. The c
Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported at 2015 (3) SCC 49
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Vs. L.K. Ahuja reported at (2004) 5 SCC 109
Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Mehul Construction Company
Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. Of Police; (1999) 2 SCC 10
McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. reported at 2006 (11) SCC 181
State of West Bengal Vs. B.K. Mondal & Sons reported at AIR 1962 SC 779
State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2009(12) SCC 1
Som Datt Builders Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported at 2009 (10) SCC 259
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.