2008 (8) TMI 969 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Dispute over an award dated 28.7.1999 between parties regarding supply of helmet combat fibre glass under a work contract.

Summary:
1. The petitioner claimant entered into an agreement with the respondent contractor for the supply of helmet combat fibre glass. After multiple extensions for delivery, the contract was canceled due to the respondent's failure to supply the agreed quantity. The petitioner proceeded with a risk purchase and invoked the arbitration clause, claiming damages for breach of contract.

2. The Sole Arbitrator rejected all three claims of the petitioner, stating that there was a deviation in the risk purchase contract. Consequently, the counter claims raised by the respondent contractor were partially allowed, leading to the petitioner filing objections against the award.

3. The petitioner contended that the award lacked specificity on the deviations in the risk purchase contract. The respondent argued that the Court should not interfere with the Arbitrator's decision, emphasizing that the Arbitrator considered all evidence and was the final authority on the matter.

4. The Court highlighted established legal principles that limit its interference in arbitral awards. It reiterated that the Arbitrator's findings, even if possibly incorrect, are not subject to the Court's review. The Court cannot reevaluate facts or substitute its judgment for that of the Arbitrator.

5. The Court found that the Arbitrator's award was reasoned, as it reflected an application of mind and consideration of arguments and evidence presented. The brevity of reasons provided by the Arbitrator did not warrant rejection of the award, as non-speaking awards have been upheld in certain circumstances.

6. Citing legal precedents, the Court dismissed the petitioner's objections, confirming the impugned award and making it a rule of the Court. No costs were awarded, and the case file was to be archived.

Conclusion: The objections against the award were dismissed, and the impugned award was confirmed by the Court without any costs imposed on either party.