The importance of clear reasoning and analysis in the arbitration process.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. If the learned Arbitrator who authored the award dated March 14, 2014 or the learned Single Judge who has pronounced the decision dated October 01, 2014, had been clear in their reasoning, a simple issue would not have seen so complicated.

2. On June 05, 1997, the appellant and Prasar Bharti entered into an agreement as per which the appellant became the accredited agent for Prasar Bharti concerning Doordarshan Commercial Service. The appellant was to be paid commission of 15%. It had a credit facility of between 45 days to 60 days. Indo-Pak one day test series was to be held between April 07 and April 16, 1999 in Sharjah, popularly known as the Sharjah Cup. In May of the same year the World Cup had to be held. Pertaining to the Sharjah Cup an agreement dated January 22, 1999, having therein an arbitration clause, was executed between the parties. Concerning the World Cup, a company named Nimbus obtained an order in its favour from the Bombay High Court. By said date certain amounts realized by the appellant concerning the World Cup from advertisers had been credited in an account maintained with Canara Bank, the benefit whereof was taken by the respondent together with the liabilities concerning the amounts. Amounts realized by the appellant from the Sharjah Cup and expenses incurred were credited and debited in the same account. In other words, pertaining to the World Cup and the Sharjah Cup amounts received were credited in the same account and amounts paid out were debited in the same account.

3. But since the arbitration clause was incorporated in the agreement between the parties concerning the Sharjah Cup, it is apparent that the dispute concerning claim by the respondent in sum of Rs.7,52,44,234/- (Rupees Seven Crore Fifty Two Lacs Forty Four Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Four only) as the licence fee, towards withholding tax in sum of Rs.3,33,50,000/-, (Rupees Three Crore Thirty Three Lacs Fifty Thousand only), towards revenue sharing in sum of Rs.3,48,16,159/- (Rupees Three Crore Forty Eight Lacs Sixteen Thousand One Hundred Fifty Nine only), and towards opportunity cost in sum of Rs.3,56,01,813/- (Rupees Three Crore Fifty Six Lac One Thousand Eight Hundred Thirteen only) had to relate to the Sharjah Cup.

4. The award has rejected the later three claims on account of no proof. The first claim has been allowed in sum of Rs.7,31,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore Thirty One Lac only) and thus we concentrate on the facts concerning said claim.

5. After noting the backdrop facts till page 21 of the award which runs into 32 pages, the learned Arbitrator has noted the pleadings in paragraphs 13 to 19 of the Statement of Claim, and without discussing anything further has held that claim No.1 was established.

6. The learned Single Judge has noted judgments concerning power of a Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but without discussing anything further, has dismissed the objections.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent concedes that any claim pertaining to the World Cup could not be the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings and thus our job is to see whether the award by the learned Arbitrator concerning claim No.1 in sum of Rs.7,31,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore Thirty One Lac only) concerns the amount relating to Sharjah Cup.

8. Since the bank account in which payments received were credited and from which outgoing payments were debited is a singular account, the same has to be bifurcated.

9. The summary of the account maintained by Canara Bank is concededly as under:-

Date	Receipts (Rs.)	Expenses	Balance (Rs.)
29.01.99	1,38,84,750		1,38,84,750
01.02.99	5,00,97,750		6,39,82,500
18.02.99	3,00,00,000		9,39,82,500
03.03.99	1,38,84,750		10,7867,250
04.03.99	31,23,750		11,09,91,000
09.0