1. Agreement for organising state lotteries – Termination – Dispute referred to arbitration – Award granting damages challenged. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 823
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S.Anand, CJI., Doraiswamy Raju : R.C.Lahoti, JJ.
Sikkim Subba Associates
Versus
State Of Sikkim
Case No. : 2789 , 2790 of 1997
Date of Decision : 5/1/01
Advocates Appeared: Bobde V.A. : Chahar Brijender Singh : Ganapathy N. : Jain Sushil Kumar : Mathur Ashok : Parikh A.N. : Sen B.
An arbitration award can be set aside for 'legal misconduct' or 'errors apparent on the face of the record' if it results from non-application of mind, ignoring material evidence, or awarding damages based on conjectures rather than concrete proof and legal rights.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30 and 39 - Scope of interference with Arbitral Award - An award may be set aside on the ground of an error on the face thereof when the legal propositions forming the basis of the award are erroneous - "Legal misconduct" under Section 30(a) comprises situations where the arbitrator, on the face of the award, arrives at an inconsistent conclusion by ignoring material and relevant documents or fails to apply their mind to the material facts, resulting in an excessive or unjust award (Paras 12, 13)
(B) Arbitrator's Duty - An arbitrator is not a conciliator and must decide disputes according to the legal rights of the parties, not based on what seems fair or reasonable - The arbitrator cannot ignore the law, misapply it, or act arbitrarily, irrationally, or independently of the contract (Para 14)
(C) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 54 and 73 - Damages - Damages cannot be awarded on mere conjectures and hypothetical exercises divorced from reality - A party who fails to perform their own reciprocal promise cannot assert a claim for performance or damages for non-performance by the other party - The plea of waiver does not apply if the defaults are persistent and continuous (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
An agreement was entered into between the State and a firm for the organization of lotteries. Due to disputes and the firm's failure to deposit prize money and agency fees, the agreement was terminated. The firm sought arbitration, and the arbitrator awarded a substantial sum in damages to the firm after adjusting a counter-claim by the State. The award was affirmed by the District Court but set aside by the High Court. The matter was referred to a third judge in the High Court, who dismissed the firm's applications. The firm appealed to the Supreme Court challenging both the procedural orders of the High Court and the merits of the arbitral award.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the arbitral award was vitiated by serious errors of law apparent on its face and a total non-application of mind. The arbitrator ignored indisputable facts regarding the firm's defaults in remitting prize money and agency fees and incorrectly inferred a waiver by the State. The quantum of damages was found to be astronomical and based on surmise rather than substantive evidence. The arbitrator also adopted a pedantic interpretation of the rescission clause to deny the State's right to terminate for default.
Issues: 1. Whether the procedure followed by the High Court in referring the matter to a third judge was legally sustainable. 2. Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside due to perversity, legal misconduct, or errors apparent on the face of the record. 3. Whether the award of astronomical damages without concrete proof was sustainable in law.
Ratio Decidendi: An award is liable to be set aside if it is based on an unsound proposition of law or findings so unreasonable that no right-thinking person could have reached them. Legal misconduct includes ignoring material documents or drawing conclusions contrary to the record. Under the law of contracts, a party in breach of reciprocal promises cannot claim damages from the other party for termination of the contract. The Court further exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to balance equities and reject the State's counter-claim.
Result: The award of the arbitrator regarding damages to the appellants was set aside; the counter-claim made by the State was rejected; and the challenge to the High Court orders was rejected, with the High Court judgment modified accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
- arbitration
- appeal
- contract law
-
administrative law
-
delegated legislation
- retrospective operation (Para 9)
-
delegated legislation
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Appellant: Award unassailable under Section 30, Arbitration Act 1940. Respondent: Award vitiated by errors of law and legal misconduct. (Para 8 , 11 )
3. Arbitrator misconstrued contract, ignored material defaults, and awarded astronomical damages based on conjectures, constituting legal misconduct. (Para 15 , 16 )
4. An award based on a patently erroneous proposition of law or ignoring material facts is liable to be set aside under Section 30, Arbitration Act 1940. (Para 12 , 14 )
5. Appeal dismissed – Arbitrator’s award set aside – Counter-claim rejected – High Court judgment modified – Parties to bear own costs. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
6. What constitutes 'legal misconduct' by an arbitrator under Section 30(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
Legal misconduct includes non-application of mind, ignoring material documents, arriving at inconsistent conclusions, or acting arbitrarily, irrationally, or capriciously. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. Can an award be set aside for an error of law apparent on its face under Section 30(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
Yes, an error of law apparent on the face of the award, such as misapplication of legal principles or ignoring the governing law, renders the award invalid. (Para 12 , 14 )
8. Does a party in breach of reciprocal promises retain the right to claim damages for non-performance by the other party?
No. Under Section 54 of the Contract Act, a party who fails to perform their own promise cannot claim performance or damages from the other party. (Para 16 )
9. What is the scope of judicial interference with an arbitrator's award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
Courts do not sit in appeal over the arbitrator's findings of fact or law but can intervene if the award is vitiated by legal misconduct or an error apparent on its face. (Para 11 , 12 )
JUDGMENT
RAJU DORAISWAMY, J.
(1) A skeletal reference to the facts, without much emphasis on the details of merits of the case, would help to appreciate certain submissions, at the time of actual consideration of the claims projected before us.
(2) THE respondent, State of Sikkim, and the appellant, M/s Sikkim Subba Associates (referred throughout as appellants), claimed to be a firm of Partnership, entered into an agreement on 22 -1-1991 under which the appellants have been appointed as the "organising agents" for its lotteries enumerated therein subject to the terms and conditions more fully set out .therein regulating the rights and obligations of the parties. It needs to be kept in view that since running of private lotteries would constitute a criminal offence, some of the States have allowed parties, to put on the apparel of the State in return for a stipulated fee to mobilise funds, in public interest to undertake public works. Disputes and misunderstanding arose which led to the termination of the agreement resulting in the appellants seeking recourse to litigation by getting an Arbitrator appointed invoking the powers under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3) AS against the order dated 24/6/1992 of the District Judge, Gangtok, (Sikkim), appointing the sole Arbitrator, the respondent challenged the same before the High Court by filing an appeal which came to be dismissed on 23/11/1992. The matter was pursued further before this Court inSpecial Leave Petition(C) No. 26 of 1993 and by an order dated 26/4/1993 the same was, by the agreement of parties, dismissed subject to the observation that the Arbitrator shall give a speaking order and, therefore, there was no need to go into the controversy raised. The appellants filed their statement of claim before the Arbitrator for a sum of Rs.81,84,679.45 with further relief for the the refund of Rs.76.00 lacs, said to have been realised by the State by encashing two bank guarantees, with interest at 18 p.a. from 23-9-1992, the date of encashment. The respondent State filed its reply opposing the claims made by the appellants and asserted a counter claim against the appellants for a sum of Rs.8,64,81,445.00 with future interest and costs. Both parties marked documents and adduced oral evidence. Thereupon, the Arbitrator made an Award on 8-2-1994 determining the amount payable by the State to the appellants at Rs.37,75,00,000.00 and the amount payable by the appellants to the State by way of counter claim at Rs.4,61,35,24.00 and after adjusting the amounts due to the State towards its counter claim, determined the net amount payable to the appellants by the State at Rs.33,13,54,758.00 Proportionate costs were awarded and future interest was also granted at the rate of 12 p.a. on the sum of Rs.33,13,54,758.00.
(4) AGGRIEVED, the State filed an application under Section 30 of the Act to set aside the Award. The District Judge by his decision dated 27/10/1994 overruled the objections of the State and made the Award the rule of Court by passing a decree in terms of the Award. The State challenged the same before the High Court by filing an appeal under Section 39 of the Act. The matter was heard in the High Court by a Division Bench consisting of the learned Chief Justice (Justice S.N. Bhargava) and Justice R. Dayal. In a judgment dated 29/9/1995 the learned Chief Justice agreed with the contentions raised on behalf of the State and sustained the challenge made to the Award by setting aside the Award as well as the Judgment of the learned District Judge, thereby allowing the appeal with costs. Dayal, J. rendered a separate dissenting judgment by coming to the ultimate conclusion that the quantum of damages arrived at by the Arbitrator suffered an illegality apparent on its face and, therefore, in his view the matter required to be remitted for reconsideration of the matter afresh to the Arbitrator. In v
