( 51 ) IT is thus well-settled that an Arbitrator could award a lump-sum as damages. But, the question is whether in a case where the Umpire made a lump. sum award without staling the reasons or ground is or basis or criterion for the amount fixed by him, it is open to the Court to find out from extrinsic evidence the possible or probable basis or criterion for the lump-sum fixed by the Umpire. The learned Subordinate Judge, as already stated, held that the Umpire, instead of taking into consideration only the quantity that remained due, took into consideration the entire quantity and fixed the amount of damages. This was really a probe on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge into the mental process by which the Umpire arrived at the amount fixed by him. As already pointed out by us, this was just what was held to be illegal in the decision of the Supreme Court in Juvarajbhoi Ujamshail v. Chintamanrao Balaji. The learned Subordinate Judge relied upon the decesion of the High Court of Punjab (Bishan Narain, J.) in the Union of India v. Bakshi Ram. In that case, the claim of a contractor related to 3 items for which he claimed Rs. 30,000, Rs. 14,000 and Rs. 20,000 respectively. The Umpire awarded a lump-sum of Rs. 54,000 without staling how he arrived at that amount. The case of the Government was that the Umpire rejected claim (b) and awarded Rs. 54,000 under claims (a) and (c), which meant that the Umpire awarded more than what was claimed under claims (a) and (c ). On the other hand, the case of the contractor was that he claimed a sum of Rs. 64,000 in all, and that the Umpire reduced the amount and awarded a lump-sum of Rs. 54,000 The learned Judge of the High Court, on a consideration of the operative portion of the award, held that claim (b) was not specifically mentioned in the said operative portion and that it should, therefore, be considered to have been rejected by the Umpire. On that conclusion, it would follow that the Umpire awarded Rs. 54,000 which was much more than the claims (a) and (c) But, having regard to the case of the contractor that the sum of Rs. 54,000 was awarded under all the three claims, it was argued in the alternative on behalf of the Government that even if that was so, the claim (b) related to a matter which was not covered by the Arbitration Agreement and the Umpire could not adjudicate upon that claim as it was beyond the scope of reference. The learned Judge accepted the said contention also, and held that the Umpire had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim covered by claim (b ). It was in that context that the learned Judge observed as follows:-"it is well established that if a lump-sum be awarded by an Arbitrator, and it apears on the face of the award or be proved by extrinsic evidence that in arriving at the lump-sum, matters were taken into account which the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to consider. the award is had (Falkingham v. Victorian Railway Commissioner" ). On this argument of the respondent (contractor), therefore, it is clear that the Umpire, in fact, exceeded his jurisdiction and, therefore, this award cannot be made a rule of the Court as he has taken into consideration the claim (b)". Thus, on either basis, namely, on the basis that claim (b) was disallowed by the Umpire or on the basis that claim (b) was taken into consideration by the Umpire, the award was liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the Government placed reliance upon the words "or be proved by extrinsic evidence" in the passage extracted above, and contended that where a lump-sum wa. s awarded by the Arbitrator, it is open to go into extrinsic evidence to find out the basis or the criterion for the amount fixed by the Umpire. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the clear decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, which are binding upon us.

( 52 ) IN the aforesaid decision in Union of India v. Bakshi Ram', there was another contention regarding claim (c) which related t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document