( 1 ) THE respondent (corporation) entered into five contracts with the claimants M/s Natwar Lal Shamal Dass and Co. (claimants ). The case of the claimants was that the corporation failed to take delivery of managese are within the original delivery period or the extended period. They alleged that they sustained loss and damages and were entitled to reimbursement. Dispute arose between the parties. There was an arbitration clause in the purchase contracts. The claimants made applications to this court under Section 20 of the Act in 1975, and asked for a reference of the disputes and the differences between the parties to an arbitrator to be appointed by the court. A learned Single Judge of this court referred the disputes to the sole arbitrator Sh. Chopra. The arbitrator gave five awards who sent those awards to this court. The respondents have filed objections under section 30/33 of the Act for setting aside those awards. It was contended that (1) these awards were based no evidence (2) that the arbitrator has referred to the claim, w, s" and the evidence in the awards and, therefore, it should be held that these are speaking awards and therefore the evidence before the arbitrator can be examined by the court, (3) the award is vitiated because the arbitrator did not observe the law of limitation and awarded sums in respect of time barred claims, (4) the awards are bad and liable to set aside because they were beyond the scope of reference.

( 2 ) HELD that: 1. If an award is non-speaking award the court cannot say that the arbitrator s decision is based on good evidence or insufficient evidence or no evidence at all. In these cases it is not correct to say that the arbitrator s decision is based on no evidence. There was evidence before him and on that evidence he was entitled to find as he did in favour of the claimant. Of the quality and sufficiency of that evidence the court cannot be ajudge. It is for the arbitrator to weigh the evidence adduced by the parties. He has not to give any reason why he has accepted the claim of a party. Following a division bench judgment of this court in Union of India v. Bashashar Nath (FAO (OS) 65/63 decided on 21-5-80, the learned Judge after seeing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was evidence before the arbitrator on which he could find in favour of the claimants. It was therefore held that these awards were non-speaking award and the Corporation could not assail them on the ground of no evidence.

( 3 ). Disagreeing with the contention of the counsel for the Corporation that the arbitrator has referred to the claim, written statement, rejoinder and evidence in the award and therefore, it should be held that these are speaking awards and the evidence before the arbitrator can be examined by the court, it was held that a mere general reference to the pleadings of the parties and the evidence does not mean that the arbitrator has invited the court to look into the evidence before him. He has not said that on the evidence of such and such witness or on the clause of such and such document he has come to such and such conclusion (1967 SC 1032 ). If the arbitrator says this it can be said that he has incorporated the documents or the evidence of the witness in the award.

( 4 ) IT is well settled that the arbitrator is not bound to give a separate award for each claim. He can give a lump sum award His award on both fact and law is final and there is no appeal from his verdict. The court cannot review his award and correct any mislake in his adjudication unless objection to the legality of award is apparent on the face of it. When the arbitrator has given no reason for his award, nor is there any legal proposition as basis of award, the contention that there are errors of law on the face of the award must be rejected. (1923 P. C. 66, referred to ). As the parties choose their own arbitrator they cannot, when the award is good on the face of it, object to the decision eith

Click Here to Read the rest of this document