Arbitral award upheld despite jurisdiction, tenancy consent, and natural justice challenges in a company-related partition dispute.

An arbitral award was sustained against challenges based on alleged error apparent on the face of the award, want of jurisdiction over company assets and shareholding disputes, absence of landlord consent for division of tenancy rights, breach of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and alleged natural justice violations arising from the annexed plan and conduct of the proceedings. The court treated the company's participation and the parties' intended business division as sufficient to support the award, accepted the evidence of landlord consent, and held that the premises plan reflected a hearing-based partition exercise rather than arbitral misconduct. The limitation objection was noted but did not determine the result.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the award was liable to be set aside for error apparent on the face of the award and for want of jurisdiction in dealing with the company's assets and shareholding disputes; (ii) whether the award was invalid for dividing tenancy rights without lawful landlord consent and for alleged breach of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956; (iii) whether reliance on the annexed plan and the manner in which the arbitration was conducted amounted to violation of natural justice or arbitral misconduct; (iv) whether the challenge to the award was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the award was liable to be set aside for error apparent on the face of the award and for want of jurisdiction in dealing with the company's assets and shareholding disputes.

Analysis: The challenge that the arbitrator had impermissibly dealt with the company's assets was rejected. The company was itself a party to the reference, the disputes were referred in the context of shareholder and company controversies, and the award proceeded on evidence that the parties intended a division of the business and its incidents. In a private company context, distribution in specie of assets in satisfaction of claims, with the company as a party, was not treated as beyond jurisdiction. The alleged mistakes in the recitals and description of premises were treated as non-essential and not sufficient to vitiate the award.

Conclusion: The award was not shown to suffer from an error of law apparent on its face or from want of jurisdiction on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the award was invalid for dividing tenancy rights without lawful landlord consent and for alleged breach of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Analysis: The record contained letters and oral material indicating that the relevant landlords had agreed to the division and assignment arrangement contemplated by the award. The arbitrator's conclusion on consent was founded on evidence and could not be branded perverse. The Court also declined to accept the later letter relied upon against the award, since post-award conduct could not govern validity of the award. On the facts, the tenancy allocation was not treated as contrary to the tenancy statute.

Conclusion: The award was not invalid on the ground of absence of landlord consent or violation of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Issue (iii): Whether reliance on the annexed plan and the manner in which the arbitration was conducted amounted to violation of natural justice or arbitral misconduct.

Analysis: The division of the premises, the feasibility of partition, and rival plans had been discussed over several meetings, with inspection of the premises and alterations made after hearing both sides. The annexed plan was treated as a representation of the modifications reached through that process. Since the parties had been heard on the underlying spatial division and the arbitrator was not required to disclose the precise form of the final award before pronouncement, no breach of natural justice was made out.

Conclusion: No violation of natural justice or arbitral misconduct was established in relation to the annexed plan.

Issue (iv): Whether the challenge to the award was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The chronology of filing, notice, stamping, and applications raised a serious limitation objection, and the application was considered likely time-barred. However, the Court did not rest its decision on this ground and found it unnecessary to examine the limitation question in detail because the challenge failed on merits.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was noted but not ative of the final disposal.

Final Conclusion: The award was upheld against all substantive attacks, and the applications seeking to set it aside failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award will not be set aside for alleged legal error unless the error is apparent on the face of the award, and where the parties have litigated and consented to the underlying arrangement, the court will not disturb the award merely because it effects a practical division of company-related rights and tenancy interests.

---