Arbitral award challenge fails where no statutory ground is shown; future interest allowed from the decree date.

A non-speaking lump sum arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 was upheld because both parties had adequate opportunity, the arbitration clause was wide enough to cover the disputes, and no recognised ground under sections 30 and 33 was shown to justify interference; the court would not reappraise evidence or probe the arbitrator's mental process. The pre-decree interest award was sustained, pendente lite interest was not granted because it had not been claimed or argued before the High Court, and future interest from the date of decree was allowed at 12 per cent per annum until payment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside for breach of natural justice or as being beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement; (ii) whether the award of interest, including pendente lite and future interest, was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside for breach of natural justice or as being beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Analysis: The award was non-speaking and based on documentary material placed before the arbitrator. The record showed that both parties were given adequate opportunity, and no material basis was shown to displace that finding. The arbitration clause was wide enough to cover disputes concerning the rights and obligations of the parties, and the award was made in a lump sum on the basis of the claims and counter-claims. In proceedings under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the court could not reappraise evidence or speculate on the mental process of the arbitrator. A non-reasoned award or a lump sum award was not, by itself, vulnerable to challenge.

Conclusion: The award was not shown to have been passed in violation of natural justice and was not beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Issue (ii): whether the award of interest, including pendente lite and future interest, was sustainable.

Analysis: The award of interest from 28-9-1982 to 10-1-1985 was upheld. On the question of pendente lite interest, the court did not interfere with the High Court's denial in the absence of a claim and supporting argument before it. However, the court found no justification to deny future interest from the date of decree and fixed it at 12 per cent per annum till payment.

Conclusion: The award of pre-decree interest was sustained, pendente lite interest was not granted, and future interest was allowed at 12 per cent per annum from the date of decree till payment.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the arbitral award substantially failed, but the interest component was modified to the limited extent indicated, with the company receiving future interest from the date of decree.

Ratio Decidendi: In a challenge under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, a non-speaking lump sum arbitral award cannot be set aside unless a recognised statutory ground is established, and the court will not reappraise evidence or infer the arbitrator's mental process; interest may be granted according to the circumstances and the governing law.

---