Limited judicial review of non-speaking arbitral awards bars reappraisal of evidence absent Section 30 grounds.

In a non-speaking arbitral award, judicial interference is limited to the grounds in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, such as misconduct, excess of jurisdiction, or an error apparent on the face of the award. The arbitrator stated that the pleadings and documentary and oral evidence were considered, and the interpretation of the contract, including the effect of rebate letters and conditional correspondence, was for the arbitrator alone. In the absence of material showing that the relevant documents were ignored or that the contract prohibited adjudication of the claim, the court could not reappraise the evidence or infer non-consideration merely because another view was possible. The award was therefore not liable to be set aside on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside part of a non-speaking arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator had not considered the contractor's rebate letters and whether interference under the Arbitration Act, 1940 was permissible on that basis.

Analysis: The award was a non-speaking award, and the arbitrator stated that the pleadings and documentary and oral evidence had been considered. In such a case, the court's power to interfere is narrow and is confined to the grounds available under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, including misconduct, excess of jurisdiction, or error apparent on the face of the award. Interpretation of the contract, including the effect of exchanged correspondence and conditional rebate offers, was a matter for the arbitrator. In the absence of material showing that the relevant documents were ignored or that the contract barred adjudication of the claim, the High Court could not reappraise the evidence or infer non-consideration merely because a different view was possible.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the award on the stated ground, and the arbitrator's award could not be set aside to that extent.

---