Arbitral award set aside for failing to decide referred disputes; remand upheld after non-consideration of key issues.

An arbitral award was held unsustainable where it did not decide the specific disputes referred for arbitration. The reference required findings on distinct questions, including the correctness and scientific basis of the quantity calculation adopted by the Chief Conservator of Forests and whether it should operate generally from a specified date. The award merely repeated the administrative determination and declared it final and binding, without addressing the remaining issues. That failure to apply mind to the full reference justified interference, so the High Court's order setting aside the award and remitting the matter for fresh decision was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award was unsustainable for failure to decide the specific disputes referred for arbitration, warranting interference with the High Court's order setting aside the award and remitting the matter.

Analysis: The reference required determination of distinct questions, including whether the quantity calculation adopted by the Chief Conservator of Forests was correct, whether the calculation was scientific, and whether it should apply generally from a specified date. The award merely repeated the administrative determination and stated that it was final and binding, without addressing the remaining questions. Such a disposal did not amount to a decision of the actual disputes referred and reflected failure to apply mind to the full reference. The High Court was therefore justified in holding the award unsustainable and in remitting the matter for fresh decision.

Conclusion: The award was rightly set aside and the remand order was upheld.

---