Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
V.P.GUPTA
SETH SUNDER PARSHAD & SONS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
Civil Suit No. 23 of 1978
Decided On : 05/10/1983
ARBITRATION - AWARD - NON-SPEAKING AWARD - VALIDITY - ERROR OF LAW OR FACT - WHEN CAN BE CHALLENGED - INDIAN ARBITRATION ACT, 1940, SECTIONS 30, 33.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a contractor, entered into an agreement with the defendant, the State of Himachal Pradesh, for the construction of Government residential accommodation quarters. Disputes arose between the parties and were referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made an award in favor of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff filed objections under section 30 read with section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the award was a non-speaking award and did not give any reasons for accepting or rejecting the claims. However, the court also held that it was not competent to find out the mistakes in calculations or otherwise from the statement of claims filed by the plaintiff or to determine whether the plaintiff had been allowed 66% above the schedule of rates of 1968 or the schedule of rates as available on 17.9.1973.
Issues: 1. Whether the Arbitrator mis-conducted himself proceedings? 2. Whether the Award was made beyond the time prescribed ? If so, to what effect ? 3. Whether the Award suffers from any illegality on its face ?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in N. Chellappan v. Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board and another, AIR 1975 S.C. 230, Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Sivraj Ballo Co., AIR 1923 P.C. 66, Union of India v. Bunqe Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1967 S.C. 1032, Omvik Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Kanpur v. Union of India and another, (1980) 82 P.L.R. (D). 167, and Allen Berry & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India, AIR 1971 S.C. 696, to hold that an award is good on the face of it, the parties cannot object to the decision either upon the law or the facts. Therefore, even when an arbitrator commits a mistake either in law or in fact in determining the matters referred to him, but such mistake does not appear on the face of the award or in a document appended to or incorporate in it to as to form part of it, the award will neither be remitted nor set aside not withstanding the mistake.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's objections and made the award a rule of the Court. A decree in terms of the award was passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
V.P. Gupta. J.— M/s Seth Sunder Prashad and Sons contractors (plaintiff) agreed to execute some, work for the construction of Government residential accommodation quarters at Kasumpti, Simla, vide agreement No. 6 entered into between the plaintiff and the State of Himachal Pradesh .(defendant). The work order was issued to the plaintiff in September/October, 1973, and the plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the agreement constructed the quarters.
2. In the agreement under clause 25, all questions and disputes arising our of or relating to the contract were to be decided by an arbitrator to be appointed by the chief Engineer, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department,
3. Disputes arose between the parties and they were referred to the arbitration of Shri O. P. Sablok, Superintending Engineer, H. P. P. W. D. The arbitrator entered on the reference on 30th June, 1977 and gave his award on 27th February, 1978,
4. The arbitrator filed the award in this Court on 1st July, 1978 with a prayer that the award be made a rule of the Court.
5. Notices regarding the filing of the award were given to the parties. The plaintiff filed objections under section 30 read with section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act on 13th November, 1978, i.e. within the statutory period. The defendant filed apply and contested the claim of the plaintiff.
6. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed on 22nd March. 1979 : "1. whether the Arbitrator mis-conducted himself proceedings?
2. whether the Award was made beyond the time prescribed ? If so, to what effect ?
3. whether the Award suffers from any illegality on its face ?
7. The parties were allowed to lead evidence. Shri Shiv parshad Seth plaintiff) appeared in the witness-box and further stated that the arbitration file be read in evidence. The defendant also stated that the arbitration file be read in evidence. Arguments were heard, ISSUE No.1.
8. Shri H. K. Bhardwaj appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-objector contends that the arbitrator has made wrong calculations and has awarded lesser amount to the plaintiff. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the plaintiff should have been allowed rates 66% above the amended schedule of rates as were available on 17.
9. 1973, According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff has been allowed rates which are 66% above the schedule, of rates of 1968. as refers to the agreement and the letter, dated 13.
9. 73 (Exhibit P 1) addressed by the plaintiff to the Chief Engineer, H. P. P. W. D. He also referred to the reply, dated 8-10-73 from the Executive Engineer, Simla Division No. 4, to the plaintiff, which is available in the file pertaining to agreement No. 1.
9. Shri M. L. Chauhan appearing on behalf of the defendant contends that the award is a non-speaking award and no reasons have given in the award. It is contended that the evidence has not been discussed in the award and there is no error of law or fact apparent on the face of the award. The learned counsel further contends that no other document except the award can be, looked into for adjudication of the present objections filed by the plaintiff.
10. It is not disputed that in this case the award is a non-speaking award. The plaintiff claimed Rs, 67,488—93 on account of various claims filed by him before the arbitrator in the shape of a final bill. This statement of claims is Schedule A in the arbitration file. The arbitrator has awarded Rs.28,486-30 against this claim of the plaintiff without giving any reasons. The defendant also filed a counter-claim of Rs. 6,496-30 but the arbitrator did not accept this claim. The arbitrator has not given any reasons for allowing a part of the plaintiffs claim or for disallowing the defendants counter-claim.
11. In N. Chellappan v. Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board and another, AIR 1975 S.C. 230 it was held in paras 12 and 13 of the judgment : "The umpire as sole arbitrator was not bound to given a reasoned award and if in passing
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
