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

1999 (4) TMI 648

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... greement with respondent No. 1 namely Indian Rare Earths Ltd. for mining, collection and supply of raw-sand during the period from 1.6.1979 to 31.5.1980. It was agreed between the parties that appellant would supply 2,02,000 tonnes of raw-sand at the average rate of 920 tonnes per day. The appellant failed to supply entire quantity and supplied only 1,72,489.24 tonnes. The disputes between the parties were referred to the arbitrator, who has been made a party in the present appeal namely respondent No. 2. 4. Before the arbitrator the appellant claimed No. 24,02,272/under 10 heads along with interest. A counter claim was also filed by respondent No. 1 for No. 3,29,648.99 paise alongwith interest. The arbitrator framed as many as 51 issues .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt it may be demonstrated that the arbitrator has committed some mistake in arriving at his conclusion and it is also not open to the Court to speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator, as to what impelled him to arrive at his conclusions. 9. In State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. R.V. Rayanim and Ors. [1990]1SCR54 it was held 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 case the Court can look into the arbitration agreement but under the former it cannot. 10. In Associated Engineering Co. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. [1991]2SCR924 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted 24.3.79. 13. Out of claims under 10 heads the arbitrator awarded amount under claims Nos. 3 9 of the appellant. Out of 51 issues framed by the arbitrator, issues Nos. 15 to 18 were in respect of claim No. 3 and issues Nos. 31 to 37 were in respect of claim No. 9. We quote below issues Nos. 15 to 18 in respect of claim No. 3: 15. Whether six acres alone out of the mining area covered by the tender from were available for mining on account of obstruction of kudikidappukars, ex-workers of Associated Minerals Co. Ltd. and local public as alleged by claimant in paragraph 14 of State of claim? 16. Whether it was respondent's duty to see that the entire extent of mining area detailed in the tender form was available for mining a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ons which arose in the course of the mining work between him and his mining workers, but not with strangers like kudikidappukars and local public who claimed either rights in the land or rights and privileges against the respondent, and it was respondent's duty to see that the entire extent of mining area detailed in the tender form was available for mining and mining operations could be carried on there query and without hindrance, and whenever complaint regarding obstruction was received respondent tried to discharge that duty by appealing to public authorities for help, but without success. 17-18. Claimant suffered loss to the extent of No. 2,81,461.26 and respondent is liable to make good that loss. 15. The learned Counsel for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7. As stated above the award contains not only the sum awarded but also the case of the parties, issues framed, findings on each issue, therefore, we hold that the findings of the arbitrator on the issues are the part of the award and the court can look into the findings. 18. The arbitrator has come to the findings that the entire mining area covered with tender was made available to the appellant but according to the arbitrator mining was not possible in some days in the month of April, 1980 and whole month of May, 1980 on account of obstructions by kudikidappukars and local public. The above finding of the arbitrator is in respect of the issue No. 15 which forms part of the award. While awarding the amount the arbitrator did not take n .....

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