9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be a mistake on the face of the award and the documents appended or incorporated thereto which form part of the award, it cannot be set aside even with respect to interest part of it. In this view of the matter, we hold that the company is entitled for interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 28-9-1982 to 10-1-1985 and future interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of decree till payment. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel for the parties carefully. In para 11 of the impugned judgment, the High Court has recorded thus : "11. Some arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the arbitrator has violated the principles of natural justice as he accepted some documents after closing the argument and the respondents were not given any opportunity thereafter either to explain the said document or adduce fresh evidence in relation thereto. This argument was abandoned after perusal of the order-sheet of the arbitrator which shows that at each stage adequate opportunity was given to both parties. Thus the award in hand cannot be set aside on any of the grounds relied on by the learned court below." 6. The learned senior counsel for the trust was not in a position to say that the statement made in the above paragraph is incorrect. If that be so, his contention that the Arbitrator passed the award in violation of the principles of natural justice, cannot be accepted. It may be added that the parties did not lead any oral evidence and they were satisfied with the documents placed before the Arbitrator. 7. In the operative portion of the award it is stated thus : "Having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y covered and they fall within the scope of arbitration clause. The learned counsel, referring to the claim Nos. 2 and 7 urged that these claims were outside the terms of agreement. The company made a claim for Rs. 12,93,260 against various heads and the Arbitrator granted Rs. 8,61,315 with interest as stated in the award. It is an award made in lump sum. It is not possible to say whether the Arbitrator awarded any amount under claim Nos. 2 and 7 when the award was made only for Rs. 8,61,315 as against the total claim of Rs. 12,93,260. It is not possible to read mental process of the Arbitrator as to how he came to the conclusion in passing the award for lump sum amount. Further the award passed by the Arbitrator cannot be set aside assuming that another view is possible. Thus we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel that the award passed by the Arbitrator was beyond the scope of either the arbitration clause or the terms of the contract or it was in excess or opposed to the terms of reference. In view of what is stated above, it is not possible to take a view that the award passed by the Arbitrator was arbitrary or unsustainable. 11. From several decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpressly indicated in the Arbitration Act, and it has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal and examine the correctness of the award on merits...." (p. 415) 14. This Court in State of Orissa v. Lall Bros. [1988] 4 SCC 153, has held that the fact that there is a non-reasoned award, is no ground to set it aside and that lump sum award is not bad per se, as such. 15. In Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P.) Ltd. AIR 1989 SC 973, in para 11 of the judgment it is observed by this Court that : ".....Reasonableness as such of an award unless the award is per se preposterous or absurd is not a matter for the court to consider. Appraisement of evidence by the Arbitrator is ordinarily not a matter for the Court...." (p. 977) 16. In a recent decision this Court in Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern Engg. Enterprises [1999] 9 SCC 283#, after referring to large number of decisions on the subject, in para 44 has reiterated the position of law as stated above. The learned counsel for the trust, when specifically asked under which clause of para 44 the case of the trust falls, pointed out to clauses (h) and ( i) of para 44. Clause (h) refers to the aw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason to deny future interest from the date of the decree to the company. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we consider it just and appropriate to award future interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of decree till payment. The award of interest from 28-9-1982 to 10-1-1985 was justified by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The contention that there was no basis for choosing the date 28-9-1982 is answered in the judgment of the High Court itself stating that it was on 28-9-1982 that the trust repudiated the contract and forfeited the deposit made by the company and that the Arbitrator entered into reference on 10-1-1985. We agree with the reasons recorded by the High Court in this regard. Further as already noticed above, the award is made in lump sum. As rightly observed by the High Court, unless there appears to be a mistake on the face of the award and the documents appended or incorporated thereto which form part of the award, it cannot be set aside even with respect to interest part of it. In this view of the matter, we hold that the company is entitled for interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 28-9-1982 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
