State of Orissa & Ors. v. Lall Brothers

The.Judgment ofihe Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an application for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from the decision. and judgment of the High.Court of Orissa, dated 8th April, 1987. By the· C said judgment the High Court had allowed the appeal _in part and modified the award so far as it related to the payment of interest on the awarded amount. Another appeal challenging the validity of the award was, howeve;r, dismisse;d. In or about 1975-76 the respondent was entrusted with the work D of "Constrnction of balance work of earth dam of Koska Minor Irriga- tion Project" vide an agreement No. 207 F-2. The said work was due to be completed on 3rd August, 1977 but it was actually completed on 31st March, 1978. The estimated value of the work was Rs.25,06,299. It is stated that the contractor, respondent herein, had executed only 18 out of 22 items of w.ork beside. one extra item and he was paid a sum E of. Rs.23,63,122 for the work done. According to the petitioner, no further amount was due to the contractor, the respondent. Final bill was prepared on 12th February, 1980 and it was uncon­ ditionally accepted by the respondent-contractor. This contention, however; was sought. to be disputed before us by the respondent- F contractor by producing certain bill stated to be the final bill which was "accepted under protest". It is, however, not necessary for us to go into this question at this stage. On or about 16th April, 1980, the respondent-contractor raised certain claims and gave notice for appointment of an arbitrator accord- G ing to the contract. On 22nd April, 1980, the Chief Engineer appointed Shri N.K. Mishra as arbitrator. However, on· the applica, tion of the respondent the Subordinate Judge removed Shri N .K. Mishra and instead appointed Shri P .C. De as the arbitrator. Before the arbitrator the respondent filed its claim along with. some docu­ ments and the petitioner filed his counter statement. It is stated on H \ behalf of the State that no further evidence was adduced by the respondent but the petitioner produced the measurement books. The petitioner contended that no amount was due. The respondent dis­ puted that. The arbitrator on behalf of the claim statement and some docu­ ment filed by the respondent-contractor, gave a lump sum award for Rs.14,67,000 plus interest at 9% from 30.4.1978. The award was given on 23rd June, 1982. On 11th July, 1983, the learned Subordinate Judge. made the award rule of the Court with the modification that the interest was directed to run from 23.6.1982 insiead of 30.4.1978. The High Court allowed the appeal in part and deleted the direction regarding future interest awarded by the arbitrator and modified by the learned.Subordinate Judge. In appeal it was contended before the High Court for the said judgment by the Subordinate Judge that the following objections were taken against the award, namely: "(i) that there _is an error of law apparent on the face of the award; (ii) that the arbitrator has misconducted himself by giving a lump sum award without examining each item of the claims; (iii) that the claimant having accepted the final bill uncon­ ditionally deposit, the contract between the parties stood closed and, therefore, the arbitration clause was not opera­ tive and the arbitrator appointed had no jurisdiction to adjudicated upon the disputes; (iv) that the award of interest is without jurisdiction". Except the documents on record, neither of the parties adduced any evidence. It was urged before us that the High Court did not accept challenge to the award but modified the order of interest as indicated before. The award in question contained the recitals to the G effect that the arbitrator had gone through the claim statement, counter statement and documents produced before him and heard the representations made by the parties. There is no error of law apparent on the face of the award. There was no misconduct on the part of the arbitrator or in the conduct of the proceedings. It was contended before us that this is an award which was an unreasoned and a lump H sum amount was awarded without specifying the amount awarded on particular grounds. STAIB OF OR!SSA v. LALL BROS. [MUKHARJI, J.] 583 In our opinion, the High Court was right in refusing to accept the challenge to the award. The fact that there is an unreasoned award, is no ground to set aside an award. Lump sum award is not bad per se. as such. An award is conclusive as a judgment between the parties and the court is entitled to set aside an award only if the arbitrat.or has misconducted himself in the proceedings or when the award h>is b~en made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitra­ tion or after arbitration proceedings have become invalid under sec­ tion 35 of the Arbitration Act or where an award has been improperly 1 procured or is otherwise invalid under section 30 of the Act. An award may be set aside by the Court on the ground of error on the face of the award, but an award is not invalid merely because by a process of inference and agrument it may be demonstrated that the arbitrator has committed some mistake in arriving at his conclusion. It is not open to the Court to speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator, as to what impellied him to arrive at his conclu­ sions. See in this connection the observations of the Judicial Commit­ tee in Champsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Ba/loo Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd., L.R. 50 I.A. 324 and of tbis Court in Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth & Ors. v. Chintamanrao Balaji & Ors., [1964] 5 SCR 480. The fact that a Jump sum award has been given, is no ground to declare the award bad: See further Firm Madan/al Ros~anlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd:·; Indore, [1967] 1 SCR 105 and Union of fndia v. Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd., [1967] 1 SCR 324 as well as the ·decision of this Court in Allen Berry & Co. (P) Ltd, v. Union of India, New Delhi, [1971] 3 SCR 282. ·· '" Learned Solicitor General for the petitioner relied on Continental Construction Co. Ltd. v .. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1988] 3 SCC 82. Reliance was misplaced. If a question of law was not specifically refer­ red to the arbitrator his decision is not final. It was reiterated that the arbitrator is bound by law, and if an error of law in the award is on the face of it, it is amenable to"be corrected. ' ' · In that view of the matter the points sought to be urged in this application for leave, are not entertainable. The application fails and is accordingly dismissed. N.V.K. Petition dismissed.