1999 (4) TMI 610 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Disputes arising between State of Orissa and respondent regarding exclusive right and license to fell, cut, and remove bamboos referred to arbitration.
2. Arbitrator's award challenged, setting aside the order and remitting the matter back to the Arbitrator for re-determination.
3. Contention over whether the Arbitrator decided the disputes referred to him for arbitration.
4. Analysis of the Arbitrator's award and the subsequent judgments.

Analysis:
1. The disputes between the State of Orissa and the respondent regarding the exclusive right and license to fell, cut, and remove bamboos were referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator's award was made a Rule of the Court by the judgment of the Sub-Judge, BhRIaneswar in Misc Case No. 442/78. However, the respondent appealed the decision, leading to the High Court setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and the award of the Arbitrator, remitting the matter back to the Arbitrator for re-determination.

2. The High Court concluded that the Arbitrator had not decided the disputes referred to him for arbitration, rendering the award unsustainable in law. The High Court held that the award could not have been made a rule of the court by the Subordinate Judge. The State of Orissa contended that the Arbitrator concurred with the decision of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Orissa, and thus, the High Court should not have interfered with the award. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the Arbitrator did not address all points in the first dispute referred to him, indicating a lack of application of mind.

3. The first dispute referred to the Arbitrator involved determining specific points related to the quantity and methodology of bamboos cut and removed. The Arbitrator's award only mentioned the Chief Conservator's determination without addressing the scientific calculation or the applicability of the methodology in all cases from a specific date. The High Court's decision to set aside the award and remit it back to the Arbitrator was justified based on the Arbitrator's failure to address all points raised in the dispute.

4. The appeal was dismissed with costs, with both judges concurring. Justice Wadhwa highlighted the delay caused by the State of Orissa challenging the High Court's order, emphasizing the need for proper advice to the State when deciding to challenge orders, especially in cases that may not require the intervention of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.