An arbitrator is not entitled to award pendente lite or future interest, and an award may be set aside on the ground of an error on the face thereof only when the award or in any document incorporated therewith there is found some legal preposition which is the basis of the award and which is erroneous.

1. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties Sh AN. Saraf retired District and Sessions Judge, Jammu was appointed as an arbitrator vide order passed in Arbitration Application No. 16 of 1984 on 29.3.1985 for adjudication of disputes existing between the parties Sh. Saraf entered upon the reference and submitted his award in this court on 2.9. 1986,

2. Notice of the filing of the award was served upon the petitioner-Insurance company on 17-7-1986 and they filed the present CMP Under section 30/33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award in this court on August 14, 1986

3. The respondent Chajju Ram vide his objections filed to CMP No 419 of 1986 on 11 8.1987 submitted that he has no objection to the award being made a rule of the court, it was however submitted that the petition of the Insurance company was barred by time and liable to be dismissed. It was further submitted that the award of the arbitrator could not be set aside on any ground whatsoever.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the case on 26th Aug. 1987:

1. Whether the application for setting aside the award filed by National Insurance Co. the petition is within time? OPP

2. Whether the arbitrator has mis-conducted himself or the proceedings ? OPP

3. Whether the award is otherwise invalid ? OPP

4. Relief 0. P. P.

5. As no list of witnesses was filed and no witness was produced, the evidence of the petitioner was closed by this court vide order dated 28th Aug. 1988. The learned counsel for the parties submitted that they do not want to lead any evidence and prayed that the case be listed for hearing as is evident from the court order dated 29th June 1988.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Issue No. 1

7. The period of limitation for an application under the J&K Arbitration Act to set aside an award or to get an award remitted for reconsideration is 30 days from the date of the service of the notice of the filing of the award under Art, 158 of the Limitation Act. In the instant case the notice of the filing of the award with directions to file objections if any, to the award within the statutory period appears to have been served upon the Insurance Company on 17-7-1986 and they filed the present CMP in this court on 14th August, 1986, well within time, The learned counsel for the respondent has not been in a position to point out that the application for setting aside the award was not within time. Issue No. 1, is, therefore, decided in favour of the petitioner-Insurance Company.

Issue No. 2

8. The petitioner-Insurance company has led no evidence to prove this issue, Even in the petition filed on behalf of the company no allegation has been levelled which could be presumed and deemed to be a misconduct within the meaning of sec. 30 of the Arbitration Act, The allegation that the petitioner company was not afforded an opportunity of being heard in the matter is without any basis. The arbitrator could not be held to be guilty of mis-conduct merely by charging allegedly heavy and in justifiable fee. The mere fact that the award was not allegedly correct or the reasons given for the conclusions were incorrect, cannot betermed to be mis-conduct attributable to an arbitrator. In view of the fact that no evidence has been led and there is no sufficient pleading in this regard, the issue is decided against the petitioner-company and in favour of the respondent.

Issue No. 3.

9, Mr. Thakur the learned counsel for the petitioner-company has submitted that as the award directs the payment of interest pendentelite and future Interest as also for payment of Rs. 10,000/- as sovages expenses inscurred by the petitioner the same is to be held otherwise invalid to that extent within the meaning of sec. 30(c) of the Arbitration Act he has relied upon AIR 1988 SC 1520 to urge that the arbitrator was not entitled to the award pendentelite or future interest. It was held by Supreme Court in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document