Arbitral award interference limited where withheld documents are not truly material and the arbitrator's contract interpretation remains plausible.

Remission or setting aside of a reasoned arbitral award is not justified merely because additional documents were allegedly withheld, unless those materials are truly material and disclose a legally sustainable ground for interference. The court reiterated that remission under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is discretionary and is ordinarily confined to awards containing omissions, defects, executory difficulty, or an error apparent on the face of the award. It also held that review does not extend to reappraising the merits beyond the award and incorporated documents. Because the relied-upon materials were only third-party opinions and did not show that the arbitrator acted beyond jurisdiction or committed misconduct, the award was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award could be remitted or set aside on the ground that certain documents allegedly withheld by the respondent were material to the construction of the contract and whether the arbitrator had misconducted the proceedings by not considering them.

Analysis: Remission under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is discretionary and is ordinarily justified only where the award contains omissions or defects, is incapable of execution, or reveals an error apparent on its face. Interference with a reasoned award is limited, and the court does not travel beyond the award and the documents incorporated in it to reappraise the merits. The documents relied upon were not part of the contract; they were only opinions or observations of third parties on the contractual clauses and did not conclusively establish that the arbitrator's construction was beyond jurisdiction or that the award was vitiated. The court found no basis to hold that the single judge misapplied the settled principles governing remission or that the alleged non-production of documents warranted interference.

Conclusion: The request to remit or set aside the award was rejected. The arbitrator's interpretation of the contract was upheld as being within jurisdiction, and no legal misconduct or patent error was shown.

Final Conclusion: The award remained undisturbed and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A court will not remit or set aside a reasoned arbitral award merely because additional materials were not produced, unless those materials are truly material and the award discloses a legally sustainable ground for interference; a plausible contractual interpretation by the arbitrator is not open to appellate correction.

---