1963 (4) TMI 77 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Incompleteness of the award
2. Creation of a trust for property
3. Valuation of properties by the arbitrator

Detailed Analysis:

1. Incompleteness of the Award:
The primary contention was that the award did not dispose of all disputes referred to the arbitrator, specifically regarding:

- Rendition of Accounts and Profits: The award declared the lease of the Glass Works Ltd. as invalid but did not provide directions for accounting for profits. The court held that the silence of the award implied the arbitrator's rejection of the claim for accounting, following the principle that an award made "de praemissis" (concerning all matters referred) is presumed to be complete unless expressly stated otherwise.

- Future Management of the Glass Company: The arbitrator did not provide specific directions for future management, which the appellants argued was required. The court reasoned that the arbitrator's silence on this matter implied reliance on the Indian Companies Act for management provisions, thus not leaving any lacuna in the award.

- Misappropriation Allegations: The award did not address the claim of misappropriation of company funds by the 6th respondent. The court interpreted the silence as a rejection of the claim, consistent with the principle that an award professedly complete and "de praemissis" implies final disposition of all matters.

2. Creation of a Trust for Property:
The appellants argued that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by creating a trust for a piece of land to cover the costs of filing the award and other court proceedings. The court clarified that the arbitrator merely made provisions for payment of costs, which was within his jurisdiction, and directed the surplus sale proceeds to be divided among the entitled parties. This contention was dismissed as it was based on a misreading of the arbitrator's actions.

3. Valuation of Properties by the Arbitrator:
The appellants contended that the arbitrator failed in his duty by not valuing the properties himself and instead adopting values suggested by the parties. The court found that the values were agreed upon by the parties during the arbitration proceedings, and thus, the arbitrator's adoption of these values was valid. This point was dismissed as it lacked merit.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision. The court held that the award was complete and valid, addressing all referred disputes either explicitly or implicitly. The objections regarding the creation of a trust and the valuation of properties were found to be without substance. The appeal was dismissed with costs.