Arbitrators' decisions within contract parameters, despite being unreasoned, are typically upheld unless clear jurisdictional errors are demonstrated.

1 Both the cases arise out of a common judgment. They were heard together and both are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2The Food Corporation of India-the petitioner in O.P.No. 39 of 1992 and respondent in O.P.No. 82 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode is the appellant in the M.F.A. and the revision petitioner in the C.R.P. O.P.No. 39 of 1992 was an application under S.30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for short, the Act and O.P.No. 82 of 1992 was under S.17 of the Act. The respondent is the owner of the Vessel Darya Ma.

3By a Charterparty dated 25th August, 1988, in the Baltimore Berth Grain Form between the owner (respondent herein) and the Charterer (appellant herein),the respondent let their Vessel M. V. Darya Ma to the appellant for carriage of cargo 27,500 Metric tons of wheat in bulk, 5 per cent more or less in owners option from 1 or 2 safe berth(s) each 1 or 2 safe port(s) U. S. Gulf including Mississippi River Port but not North of Baten Rouge. Pursuant to the said Charterparty a total quantity of 28,417.442 Metric tons of wheat in bulk as per bill of lading dated 29-9-1988 was loaded in the said Vessel at the port of loading Galveston (Texas). The appellant nominated Navlakhi (India) as the port of discharge where the said Vessel arrived on 9th November, 1988. As the said Vessel was waiting at Navlakhi without discharge of any cargo, the parties mutually agreed to divert the Vessel from Navlakhi to Calicut/Baypore port on the terms and conditions as set out in the appellant's telex dated 28th November, 1988. The Vessel sailed from Navlakhi on 28th November, 1988, without discharging any cargo and arrived at Beypore port on 12th December, 1988, commenced discharge of the cargo on 21st December, 1988 and completed the discharge on 28th January, 1989. According to the terms of the Charterparty dated 25-8-1988, all disputes arising under the Charter were agreed to be settled in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Disputes arose between the parties relating to the claim of demurrage for undue detention of the Vessel, for the determination of which the appellant and respondent appointed one arbitrator each and the arbitrators appointed an Umpire. The respondent made a claim of US $297,186.46 on various counts. The appellant denied its liability. After hearing both parties, the Arbitrators made a non speaking award on 18-2-1991. The award reads as follows:-
"(A) WE FIND AND HOLD that
(i) The Owners claims as recited in Para.6 above succeeds to the extent of US $ 293659.21 only as against their total claim of US $ 297,186.46.
(ii) The Charterers Counter Claims as recited in Para.6 above succeeds to the extent of US $ 16,953.63 only as against their total Counter Claim of US $1,15,839.33.
(B) WE AWARD AND JUDGE that the Charterers do forthwith pay to Owners the sum of US $ 276,705.58 (US.Dollars Two Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Seven Hundred Five and cents Fifty eight only) or its rupee equivalent at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of payment.
(C) We Award and Adjudge that each party to bear its own costs."

4The respondent filed O.P.No. 82 of 1992 to pass a judgment and decree according to the award and the appellant filed O.P.No. 39 of 1992 to set aside the award for facilitating the parties to appoint new arbitrators or in the alternative remit the award back to the same arbitrators to consider the disputes afresh. By a common order, the learned Sub Judge allowed O.P.No. 82 of 1992 and made the award a decree of the court and dismissed O.P.No. 39 of 1992 on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove that the arbitrators had misconducted themselves or the proceedings or the award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. No case was also made out before the learned Sub Judge that the award has been made after the issue of an order by the court superseding the arbitration or that the arbitration proceedings have become invalid under S.35 of the Act.

5Learned c