9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which is set aside accordingly. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the Arbitrator's award. The contractor's appeal was allowed, and the Union of India's appeal was dismissed. The Arbitrator's interpretation of the contract and the conditional offers was upheld, affirming the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitration awards. - KHARE, V.N. (CJI), SINHA, S.B., AND KAPADIA, S.H. JUDGMENT: S.B. SINHA, J : These appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 15.09.1998 .passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in FA No. 8 of 1993 whereby and whereunder an objection filed by the Union of India purported to be in terms of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was allowed in part. The parties hereto admittedly entered into a contract for construction of six permanent major bridges on Lekhabali Basar-Along Road in State of Arunachal Pradesh wherefor a notice inviting tender was issued by the Chief Engineer, Project Vartak, Director General (Border Roads). Shri D.D. Sharma, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 6678 of 1999, (hereinafter referred to as 'the contractor') pursuant thereto and in furtheranc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wal of conditions and rebate would be made subject to the conditions stated therein. It was, therefore, a conditional offer. By another letter dated 22.11.1983, the contractor offered further rebate on 10% mobilization advance, stating : In partial modification to our rebate offered by us vide our letter under reference at serial (2) we are pleased to offer the following final rebate if the department gives interest free 10% over our L.S. tendered amount against B.G. bond of Industrial Cooperative Bank Ltd., Gauhati. This 10% advance will have to be adjusted proportionately along with the interim payment and the B.G. bond for the adjusted amount will have to be released from time to time. The Rebates of the Bridges are as follows : These rebates are over and above the rebates mentioned in our letter at Serial (2) under reference. 1. Nallah at 15.5 m Rs.9,18,000.00 2. Laiko at 20.442 km Rs.6,21,000.00 3. Cane at 25.841 km Rs.6,48,000.00 4. Saiki at 63.88 km Rs.9,18,000.00 5. Kiddi at 96.542 km Rs.9,18,000.00 6. Sipu at 148.3 km Rs.6,66,000.00 Rs.46,89,000.00 Rupees forty six lakhs eighty nine thousand only., This rebate has been offered subject to our condition that the work is allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenses, expenses and loss of profit due to enlargement of period of performance ₹ 10,00,000.00 The learned Arbitrator rejected the claim of the contractor in respect of Claim No. 1(c) but partially allowed Claim Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 2 to the extent of ₹ 90,000/-, ₹ 6,48,000/- and ₹ 5,00,000/- respectively. The contractor filed an application before the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Tezpur which was marked as Money Suit (Arbitration) Case No. 12 of 1990, purported to be under Sections 14(2) and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying therein for a direction upon the Arbitrator to file a copy of the award and to make the same rule of the court. The Union of India filed an objection thereto purported to be under Section 30 thereof. By reason of a judgment and order dated 26.8.1992, the learned Assistant District Judge at Tezpur : Sonitpur, rejected the application filed by the Union of India for setting aside the award and made the same rule of the Court. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, an appeal was filed by the Union of India before the Gauhati High Court which was marked as F.A. No. 8 of 1993. The High Court allowed the appeal in part holdin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no further claim by the contractor was admissible. The jurisdiction of the court to set aside an arbitration is well-settled. The court, inter alia, can set aside an award if the arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings. The jurisdiction of the court in interfering with a non-speaking award is very limited. It is also trite that correspondences exchanged by the parties are required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of construction of a contract. Interpretation of a contract is a matter for the Arbitrator to determine, even if it gives rise to determination of a question of law. The Arbitrator in his award dated 5.10.1990 categorically stated that he had examined and considered the pleadings submitted by and on behalf of the parties and documentary and oral evidences were produced before him by the parties . It has not been disputed that the documents in question referred to in para 17 of the judgment of the High Court were filed before the learned Arbitrator. The arbitrator was, thus, required to consider as to whether the contractor can substantiate his claim relying on or on the basis of non-compliance of the conditions precedent in relation to the offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r condition contained in Section 30 is satisfied, an award cannot be set aside. The arbitrator is a Judge chosen by the parties and his decision is final. The Court is precluded from reappraising the evidence. Even in a case where the award contains reasons, the interference therewith would still be not available within the jurisdiction of the Court unless, of course, the reasons are totally perverse or the judgment is based on a wrong proposition of law. As error apparent on the face of the records would not imply closer scrutiny of the merits of documents and materials on record. One it is found that the view of the arbitrator is a plausible one, the Court will refrain itself from interfering... Yet again in H.P. State Electricity Board vs. R.J. Shah and Company [(1999) 4 SCC 214], it was held : 26. In order to determine whether the arbitrator has acted in excess of jurisdiction what has to be seen is whether the claimant could raise a particular dispute or claim before an arbitrator. If the answer is in the affirmative then it is clear that the arbitrator would have the jurisdiction to deal with such a claim. On the other hand if the arbitration clause or a specific term in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ator from deciding the dispute or there existed any specific bar in the contract precluding the contractor to raise such a claim. Once it is held that the Arbitrator had the jurisdiction, no further question shall be raised and the court will not exercise its jurisdiction unless it is found that there exists any bar on the face of the award. [See Pure Helium India (P) Ltd. vs. Oil Natural Gas Commission (2003) 8 SCC 593]. While considering a speaking award this court has, however, albeit in a different context in Union of India v. M/s Banwari Lal Sons (P) Ltd. [2004 (4) Scale 443] noticed : 17. It is now well settled that when a question of law is referred to the arbitrator the award cannot be set aside only if a different view is possible. However, it is also trite that if no specific question of law is referred, the decision of the Arbitrator on that question would not be final, however, much it may be within his jurisdiction and indeed essential for him to decide the question incidentally. Only in a case where specific question of law touching upon the jurisdiction of the arbitrator was referred for determining his jurisdiction by the parties, then the finding of the arbitrator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
