Sh. Madan Lamba vs Shri Jagdish Lamba And Ors.

88. In this regard, I deem it needless to refer to catena of authorities supporting the above view and refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Arosan Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Another to the effect that in the event of there being no reasons in the award, question of interference ofthe courtwould not arise at all and even in the event there are reasons, the interference would still be not available within the jurisdiction of the court unless of course thereexist total perversity in the award or judgment is based on wrong proposition of law. 90. Another relevant observation made by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Puri Construction Co.Ltd. wherein decision of the Supreme Court in Sudarshan Trading Co. Vs. Govt. of Kerala was relied upon, is quote worthy and is as under:- "Since the arbitrator is a judge by choice of the parties, and more often than not, a person with little or no legal background, the adjudication of disputes by an arbitration by wayof an award can be challenged only within the limited scope of several provisions of the Arbitration Act and the legislature in its wisdom has limited the scope and ambit of challenge to an award in the Arbitration Act. Over the decades, judicial decisions have indicated the parameters of such challenge consistent with the provisions of the Arbitration Act. By and large the courts have disfavored interference with arbitration award on account oferror of law and fact on the score of misappreciation and misreading of the materials on record and have shown definite inclination topreserve the award as far as possible. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is necessary, however, to put a note of caution that in the anxiety torender justiceto the party to arbitratin, the court should notreappraise the evidences intrinsically with a clost scrutiny for finding out that the conclusion drawn from some facts, by the arbitrator is, according to the understanding of the court, erroneous. Such exercise of power which can be exercised by an appellate court with power to reverse the findingof fact, is alien to the scope and ambit of challenge of an award under the Arbitration Act." 91. In Raipur Development Authority Vs. Chokhamal Contractors the Constitution Bench took the view that unless the parties expresslyagree the arbitrator is not required to give any reasons in support of his award. 92. In the instant case, the parties by virtueof clause 9 had expressely agreed that the Arbitrators shall have the powers to proceed in a summary manner and will not be bound to record or require the filing of claims or replies in writing or maintain any notes or meetingor receive or mark any formal evidence and are authorised to conduct the proceedings with all summary powers including perusing such documents and papers as they think fit and including oral submissions of parties andwitnesses. They also agreed by virtue of clause 14 that the award passed by the arbitrator shall be binding on them, their executors, administrators, legal representatives and successors in interest and shall not be challenged on any ground except fraud or collusion or error apparent on the face of theaward.This clause itself precludes the objectors from challenging the award as they do not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity nor have the Arbitrators acted contrary to the agreement or bargain between the parties.They admit no interdiction either on any factual or any legal issue. . As a consequence, objections prove damp squib and are dismissed. Awards are made rule of the court. All the suits are decreed in terms of the awards. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.