Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (7) TMI 576

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n agreement between Shri Rajasekhar Rao, the contractor and the Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limit- ed, petitioner, in respect of certain works. Differences and disputes arose, and there were proceedings before the arbi- trator named in the Agreement and there were certain pro- ceedings, the detail of which is not necessary to refer. As the arbitrators could not agree, there were differences. This Court by an order dated 16th of June, 1983 directed that arbitrators appointed by each of the parties be ap- pointed arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. It was stipulated therein that in the said order of this Court dated 16th of June, 1983, it would be no longer open to the party to question the validity of the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e case of State of Punjab v. Sri Hardyal, [1985] 3 S.C.R. 649. He relied on the observations of the Court at page 656 and emphasised that law precludes parties from extending time after the matter had been referred to the arbitrator, it would be contradiction in terms to hold that the same result could be brought about by the conduct of the parties. These observations, in our opinion, are out of the context. The policy of law is that the arbitration proceedings should not be unduly prolonged. The arbitrator therefore has to give the award within the time prescribed or such extended time as the court concerned may in its discretion extend and the court alone has been given the power to extend time for giving the award. The court has got the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s case precisely it happened. Furthermore the parties have proceeded before the umpire on that basis which is just and proper and further- more the time should be extended as was done in the case of State of Punjab v. Sri Hardyal, (supra). In the aforesaid view of the matter we are unable to accept the submission on behalf of Shri Markendeya that the award of the umpire was beyond time. It was next contended that the award contained error of law on the face of the award and there were inconsistent findings. It has to be borne in mind that it was only in a speaking award that the court could look into the reasoning of the award. In the case of Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth and others v. Chintamanrao Balaji and others, [1964] 5 S.C.R. 480, thi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o set aside the award was restricted to cases set out in section 30 of the Arbi- tration Act. It is not open to the court to speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator, as to what impelled the arbitrator to arrive at his conclusion. It is not open to the Court to attempt to probe the mental process by which the arbitrator had reached his conclusion where it is not disclosed by the terms of his award. In this case this is not a speaking award. The learned Umpire has not spoken his mind indicating why he has done, what he has done, he has narrated only how he came to make the award. Counsel drew our attention to page 26 of the award where different items have been set out and referred to page 30 of the award where the arbitrat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s as also the written and oral submissions made before me by counsel for the parties in support of their respective cases of the parties for which they have appeared; and having duly considered the dispute in its varied aspects placed before me by the parties and in the light of the entire material in the case as above narrated. I.P.JAGANMOHAN REDDY, the Umpire, nominated by the Supreme Court of India as aforesaid, and having jurisdiction to adjudi- cate the dispute between the parties in the claims and counter-claims relating to Work Orders Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 concerning the concerning Lamp Factory and the contention of the claimant and the respondent in respect of the said Claims and counter claims. (1) I DO HEREBY MAKE MY AWARD, order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates