9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of items Nos. 1, 4, 6 a rule of Court but set aside the award in respect of items Nos. 2 and 5. The rejection of the claim under items Nos. 3 and 7 was not challenged before him. On item 8, he held that the arbitrators could not have awarded future interest upto the date of payment of the amounts awarded. The contractors filed an appeal before the Division Bench and the State preferred a memorandum of cross-objections. Both the appeal and the cross-objections were dismissed by the Division Bench. Hence the present two appeals. 3. The contractors are aggrieved by the High Court's order on three of the claims made by them: Amount Item Subject Claimed Awarded NO. ₹ 1,26,376.62 Dewatering of piers, by more than one pump payment Interest on the total amount of ₹ 1,26,376.62 9% p.a. 6% p.a. from date (6.12.68) of claim reference remaining unpaid at to date of payment or decree, whichever is earlier. 2 Rs.2,39,204.67 Refund of Toll Tax 5 Rs.2,49,595.39 8 4. The High Court as mentioned earlier, set aside the award on items Nos. 2 and 5 and also set aside the grant of future interest. These are the three issues before us. 5. In regard to item No. 2 above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision makes it clear that the arbitrator is competent to award interest for the period commencing with the date of award to the date of decree or date of realisation, whichever is earlier. This is also quite logical for, while award of interest, for the period prior to a arbitrator entering upon the reference is a matter of substantive law, the grant of interest for the post-award period is a matter of procedure. Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure provides both for awarding of interest pendente lite as well as for the post-decree period and the principle of Section 34 has been held applicable to proceedings before the arbitrator, though the section as such may not apply. In this connection, the decision in Union of India v. Banoo Steel Furniture (P) Ltd. may be seen as also the decision in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board v. Unique erectors which upholds the said power though on a somewhat different reasoning. We, therefore, think that the award on item No.8 should have been upheld. 8. Now coming to the High Court's decision regarding items Nos. 2 and 5, Sri Nariman, for the appellant contends that, in setting aside the award on these items, the Court has overlo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to be incorporated. which represent a line of approach which has been specifically deviated from by our Courts. 10. In our opinion, there is great force in the contentions urged by learned Counsel. The High Court has set aside the award on the above items on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the award. This is clearly incorrect. The award is a non-speaking one and contains no reasoning which can be declared to be faulty. The scope of the Court's jurisdiction in interfering with non-speaking award on the above ground is extremely limited. The rule of limitation in this respect was enunciated by the Judicial Committee almost seven decades ago in Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. L.R. 1922-50 I.A. 324, in words which have been consistently and uniformly followed and applied in all subsequent decisions. Lord Dunedin said, after noting with disapproval certain attempts to extend the area of the court's interference with such an award: An error in law on the face of the award means, in their Lordships' view, that you can find in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto, as for instance a note appen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Village Society Ltd. (1933) A.C. 592. The ratio of this decision has been discussed and explained by the Court of Appeal in Glacoma Costa Fu Andrea v. British Italian Trading Co. Ltd. (1962) 2 A.E.R. 53 and more recently by this Court (in a decision to which one of us was a party) in Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Govt. of Kerala . That decision, therefore, could not have been taken aid of to fault the award. 13. There is, however, apart from the existence of an "error apparent on the face of the award", another angle from which a non-speaking award can be considered by the Court and, if necessary, interfered with. This ground for impeaching a non-speaking award and its limitations have been explained by this Court in the Sudarsan Trading Co, case earlier referred to. Sabyasachi Mukherjee J. (at p. 685 of [1989] 1 S.C.R.) enunciated the rule and its limitation thus: An award may be remitted or set aside on the ground that the arbitrator in making it, had exceeded his jurisdiction and evidence of matters not appearing on the face of it, will be admitted in order to establish whether the jurisdiction had been exceeded or not, because the nature of the dispute in something whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also. We have already mentioned that the High Court has not rested its decision on any question of the arbitrator having exceeded his jurisdiction or travelled beyond the contract; it has clearly held it to be a case of "error apparent on the face of the award". In our view, the case cannot be brought within the scope of the "excess of jurisdiction" rule either. 14. We would like to add that we have also heard arguments on the scope of the relevant clauses of the contract. It seems to us that the clauses are not so clear or unambiguous as to warrant an inference that the interpretation placed on them by the arbitrators is totally unsustainable. C1ause 19 does not, as the High Court has said, seem to prohibit the use of more than one pump for dewatering the well. It permits the pneumatic sinking of well in addition to sinking of wells by dredging methods and we are not aware whether any dewatering would have been necessary in this process. This is purely a technical matter and we have no material to hold that the arbitrators' interpretation was erroneous. The contractor has also contended that the dewatering with more than one pump was authorised by the offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
