Arbitral bias and excess of reference: unsupported bias claims fail, but awards beyond contract terms can be set aside.

An allegation of arbitral bias must be tested on the standard of real likelihood of bias from the viewpoint of a reasonable person with relevant information, and a bare claim unsupported by material does not disqualify the umpire; the bias challenge was rejected. An arbitral award is vulnerable where it exceeds the scope of the reference or grants relief inconsistent with clear contractual terms, even if it is non-speaking; the award was set aside because several items appeared outside the reference or contrary to the contract. The disputes were remitted to a fresh umpire to decide only claims validly referred and in accordance with the contract.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the umpire was liable to be disqualified on the ground of bias. (ii) Whether the award could be sustained when it appeared to cover claims beyond the reference and granted reliefs contrary to the contract, despite being a non-speaking award.

Issue (i): Whether the umpire was liable to be disqualified on the ground of bias.

Analysis: The apprehension of bias must be tested on the standard of real likelihood of bias from the standpoint of a reasonable person with relevant information. The challenge had already been unsuccessfully raised in prior proceedings for removal of the umpire, and no material was produced to substantiate the allegation that the umpire regularly appeared for or assisted the respondent in arbitration matters.

Conclusion: The allegation of bias was not established and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the award could be sustained when it appeared to cover claims beyond the reference and granted reliefs contrary to the contract, despite being a non-speaking award.

Analysis: An arbitrator cannot enlarge the scope of reference and cannot award on claims not referred to arbitration. A non-speaking award is not immune from challenge where the face of the record shows that relief has been granted contrary to clear contractual terms or beyond jurisdiction. The contract in question contained specific stipulations governing the rates, extra work, labour charges, delay-related claims, and claims for compensation, and several awarded items prima facie appeared inconsistent with those stipulations. At the same time, some claims might still be maintainable, so the proper course was not to uphold the award in part on the existing material but to have the disputes reconsidered by a fresh umpire confined to the claims validly referred.

Conclusion: The award was set aside and the matter was remitted to a fresh umpire to decide only the claims within the reference and in accordance with the contract.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the award succeeded to the extent that the award could not stand, and the disputes were sent back for fresh adjudication within the limits of the earlier reference.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award may be interfered with where it is shown to exceed the scope of the reference or to grant relief plainly inconsistent with the contract, even if the award is otherwise non-speaking; conversely, a bare allegation of bias unsupported by material does not invalidate the proceedings.

---