9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aram Taluk, Distt. Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Disputes and differences arose between the parties in respect of the aforesaid agreement. A reference was made to the arbitrator as per the arbitrator clause in the agreement between the parties. The respondent made eleven claims claiming various amounts, particulars whereof have been set out by the arbitrator as follows. I. Payment for forming cross (RE. in lakhs) 15.89 bund and refund of the (subsequently reduced amount recovered. to RE. 14.89 lakhs) II. Refund of Seigniorage 2.071 (withdrawn) Charges III. Escalation and damages 14.00 IV Extra load for sand 1. 075 (subsequently reduced to RE. 0.575 lakhs). V Payment for excavation 1. 030 under water for probing diaphram wall VI. Compens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the petition of the petitioner for setting aside the award and allowed the judgment in terms of the award. The petitioner preferred an appeal and a civil review petition before the High Court of Hyderabad. By a judgment dated 16th March, 1988 the division bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and the revision of the petitioner. It held that the non-speaking award of the arbitrator was not liable to be set aside by the Court. 4. The petitioner has preferred this special leave petition challenging the said decision of the High Court. The main contention which was sought to be urged on this case was that the award was a non-speaking award and, as such, was bad. On this ground, on or about 9th December, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 19.39 lakhs insofar as he finds admissible in respect of the claims which the arbitrator has adjudged. It speaks no further. In such a situation it is not possible to contend that there was any exercise of jurisdiction by the arbitrator beyond his competence. It is well-settled that in matter of challenging the award, there are often two distinct and different grounds. One is an error apparent on the face of the record and the other is that the arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction. In the latter's case the Court can look into the arbitration agreement but under the former it cannot, unless the agreement was incorporated or recited in the award. An award may be remitted or set aside on the ground that the arbitrator, in ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the respondent on account of escalation, does not make per se the award to be bad. 8. Mr. C. Sitaramiah, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the fact that the arbitrator has taken into consideration the question of escalation would make the award bad because it is not discernible whether he has awarded any amount on account of escalation. We are of the opinion that this argument is not open. In case of an error apparent on the face of the record, it has to be established that an item or an amount which the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to take into consideration, has been awarded or granted. That is not apparent on the face of the award in this case. All that the award states is that he has considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
