9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (5) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Circle, by his letter dated the 1st November, 1945, and he was given a contract for the supply of 1 1/2 crores of bricks at his tender rates. A deed of agreement was executed and signed by the plaintiff and the Additional Chief Engineer, New Delhi, on behalf of the appellant, and a delivery schedule was appended: showing the number of bricks to be supplied by the plaintiff month by month from January to May, 1946. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that he performed, his part of contract and kept bricks in readiness for supply according to the schedule appended, to the contract. But for certain reasons the* bricks were not removed from the kiln sites, though they were manufactured and made ready for delivery, as required by the delivery schedule, and this caused, according to the plaintiff, serious dislocation in the manufacture of bricks. His case-is that he had to acquire 10 big has of land at the rate of ₹ 200/- per big has which included the cost of preparing and levelling the land for the stacking of the bricks of which delivery could not be taken. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was paid, at the contract rate, the full price of the bricks which he was ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tacking bricks. .₹ 1285 (i.e. ₹ 2000/- less ₹ 715/- already paid). 'Claim No. 4': Payment on account of additional wages paid to labourers because of non-availability of ration and cloth ₹ 37,215/-10-0. 'Claim No. 8': Payment for the loss of 47 lacks of kuchcha bricks which were destroyed by rain: ₹ 40,537/- 'Claim No. 13': Payment for loss sustained as the result of brick fields not being freed for lease to intending lessees and suspension for brick manufacturing business -- ₹ 25,000/-. 'Claim No. 17': Payment of interest @ 6 per cent per annum for 2 years on account of delay in settling dues. 6. The contention of Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, for the Union, is that the award in respect of all these five items is illegal and ought to be set aside because the error in law is apparent upon the face of the award. He, however, concedes that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree according to the award for the claims in respect of which there is no illegality in the award apparent on the face of it. He does not want us to remit the award to the arbitrator for reconsideration in case we are sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to an arbitrator, whether a lawyer or a layman, he is constituted the sole and final judge of all questions both of law and fact ........ The only exceptions to that rule are, cases where the award is the result of corruption or fraud, and one other, which though it is to be regretted, is now, I think, firmly established, viz., where the question of law necessarily arises on the face of the award, or upon some paper accompanying and forming part of the award. Though the propriety of this latter may very well be doubted, I think it may be considered as established . 9. 'In Champsey Bhara Co. v. Jivaraj Balloo Spinning Weaving Co., Ltd. 50 IA 324, which was a case under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, Lord Dunedin, on a review of the decisions of the English courts, stated the law thus: 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 appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his judgment, some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which you can then say is erroneous . At another place he stated: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even though it is manifest on the face of the award that the arbitrator has gone wrong in law. This is so when what is referred to the arbitrator is not the whole question, whether involving both fact or law, but only some specific question of law in express terms as the separate question submitted; that 7s to say, where a joint of law is submitted as such, that is, as a point of law, which as all that the arbitrator is required to decide, not fact being, quoad that submission, in dispute . 10. The law as to how far finality attaches to the decision of an arbitrator may be summarised thus: The award if baldly stated without giving reason for It, cannot be assailed even if it be against fact or repugnant to law. In other words the award is not open to judicial review. But if a reference to arbitration be made generally and not specifically, and the arbitrator enunciates a proposition of law and states his own view of the law as a ground of his award, such an award is open to attack in a court of law and is liable to be set aside if there be an error of law apparent on the face of it. So also, if the arbitrator construes a document and gives his own construction or interpre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im No. 3 involves a question arising out of or relating to the contract. It was, therefore, within the competence of the arbitrator to take cognizance of the point in question. He considered the argument on either side and recorded his finding in these terms: I hold that ₹ 200/- per bigna was a reasonable price, the claim of the contractor for ₹ 2000/-iess ₹ 715/- (already paid) is therefore awarded . 12. It does not appear that there is any error apparent on the face of the award. The arbitrator has held without assigning any reason in support of his award that the contractor is entitled to ₹ 2000/- less ₹ 715/-. Therefore, the award cannot be interfered with. 13. The arbitrator, while dealing with the argument on behalf of the contractor on this point, referred to the argument advanced on behalf of the parties with respect to claim No. 1 in which reference has been made to the agreement. It does not appear that he has referred to any term of the agreement as a matter of construction to fix the liability of the appellant. He seems to have referred to the agreement to understand the nature and origin of the dispute, and in so do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to set aside the award under this head. It is accordingly set aside. 'Claim No. 8'. 15. The contractor preferred a claim for the price of 47 lacs of kuchcha bricks which had been destroyed by rain. His case was that the destruction of these kuchcha bricks resulted from the jamming of the kilns as a result of a breakdown in the brick removal arrangements which was the responsibility of the department. The Executive Engineer, on behalf of the appellant, maintained that the removal of bricks from kiln area was not a contractual obligation and that, in any case, only 45 lacs of bricks had been destroyed. The arbitrator on a consideration of the arguments on either side recorded his finding thus: I hold that the contractor is entitled to compensation and award payment for 36 lacks of bricks at 8/8 per cent i.e. ₹ 30,600/- . There is no illegality on the face of the award. Therefore, it cannot be assailed. The award in respect of this claim is, therefore, good and is accordingly maintained. 'Claim No. 13'. 16. The contractor claimed damage for the loss in his business arising on account of the non-removal of the bricks by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was referred to Mr. Dixon, Superintending Engineer for his decision under the terms of the arbitration clause of the agreement which are identically the same as those of the other already quoted. The contractor claimed ₹ 4,76,138/12/- plus interest at 6 per cent for 16 months, that is, a total sum of ₹ 5,38, 003/- under different heads. But the arbitrator allowed ₹ 2,35,346,/6/- only under his award dated the 8th May, 1949. The contractor thereupon filed the present suit for the enforcement of the award. The appellant objected to the award on various grounds. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled the objections of the appellant and accepted the award in its entirety and passed a decree in terms thereof. The award has been contested before us with respect to claims Nos. 2, 5, 8 and 17 only, which are as follows: 'Claim No. 2': Payment for loss sustained due to closing of Kiln No. 3............ ₹ 8,443/12/-. 'Claim No. 5': Payment for 88 lacs of kuchcha bricks destroyed by rain............ ₹ 75,900/-. 'Claim No. 8': Payment on account of additional wages paid to labourers because of non-availability of ratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
