Unreasoned arbitral award left intact, but interest from arbitration commencement to award date was deleted as unsustainable.

An unreasoned arbitral award was left undisturbed because the challenge on absence of reasons had not been pressed before the High Court, the contract and award were old, and the arbitrator's appointment and pending Constitution Bench issue weighed against interference. The Court also declined to refer the matter for reconsideration. However, interest awarded for the period from commencement of arbitration to the date of the award was held unsustainable and was deleted, following the earlier view relied on by the Court. The award therefore stood modified only to that limited extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interference was warranted with an unreasoned arbitral award and whether the matter should be referred to the Constitution Bench; (ii) whether the award of interest for the period from the commencement of the arbitration proceedings to the date of the award was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether interference was warranted with an unreasoned arbitral award and whether the matter should be referred to the Constitution Bench.

Analysis: The challenge to the award was not pressed on the point of absence of reasons before the High Court, and the Court noted the age of the contract and award, the manner of appointment of the arbitrator, and the pendency of the larger question before the Constitution Bench. In these facts, the Court declined to interfere and also declined to refer the matter for reconsideration.

Conclusion: The challenge to the unreasoned award was rejected and no reference to the Constitution Bench was made.

Issue (ii): Whether the award of interest for the period from the commencement of the arbitration proceedings to the date of the award was sustainable.

Analysis: The Court held that the award of interest for that period was not sustainable and modified the award by deleting interest for the relevant interval, following the view already expressed in the earlier decision relied upon by the Court.

Conclusion: The award was modified by deleting interest from the commencement of the reference before the arbitrator to the date of the award.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not entertained on the main challenge, but the arbitral award stood modified to the limited extent of disallowing interest for the specified period.

---