Non-speaking arbitral award challenged: limited review applies, contractual finality clauses cannot defeat damages adjudication, interest cut upheld.

A non-speaking arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 can be interfered with only on the limited statutory grounds for setting it aside, and the absence of reasons by itself does not justify reappraisal of the merits. Clauses treating cancellation or departmental valuation as final cannot defeat arbitral adjudication where the claims arise from wrongful cancellation and related damages; the restoration of the challenged award portions on Claims 2(K) and 2(M) followed on that basis. The reduction of interest to 9% per annum was also upheld as consistent with the governing approach to pendente lite and future interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, especially a non-speaking award, could be interfered with only on the limited grounds in Section 30. (ii) Whether the rejection of Claim No. 2(K) and the modification of Claim No. 2(M) were justified under the contract terms. (iii) Whether reduction of interest from 12% to 9% per annum was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether an award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, especially a non-speaking award, could be interfered with only on the limited grounds in Section 30.

Analysis: The award contained only bare references to amounts awarded under different heads and gave no reasons. In such a case, judicial scrutiny is confined to the statutory grounds for setting aside an award, namely misconduct, invalidity, or improper procurement. Absent a proved jurisdictional error or misconduct, the Court could not reassess the merits of the arbitrator's conclusions merely because the award did not disclose reasons.

Conclusion: Interference with the award was permissible only within the narrow limits of Section 30, and the non-speaking nature of the award did not by itself justify setting it aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of Claim No. 2(K) and the modification of Claim No. 2(M) were justified under the contract terms.

Analysis: Claim No. 2(K) related to damages for cancellation of the contract. The Court held that the arbitrator's allowance of a reduced amount necessarily reflected a conclusion on wrongful cancellation, and the courts below erred in treating the contractual cancellation clause as excluding arbitral scrutiny altogether. Claim No. 2(M) concerned the value of tools, plant, machinery, furniture, and material lying at site. The arbitrator's valuation could not be displaced merely by invoking the contractual clause treating the departmental valuation as final and binding, because that clause could not be used to nullify the arbitrator's adjudication on damages flowing from cancellation.

Conclusion: The setting aside of Claim No. 2(K) and the modification of Claim No. 2(M) were erroneous, and those portions of the award were restored.

Issue (iii): Whether reduction of interest from 12% to 9% per annum was warranted.

Analysis: The Court found no error in reducing the interest rate in light of the governing approach to pendente lite and future interest and the guidance that such interest should ordinarily be confined to 9% per annum.

Conclusion: The reduction of interest to 9% per annum was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only in part by restoring the arbitrator's award on Claims 2(K) and 2(M), while sustaining the rejection of Claim 2(L) and the reduced interest rate.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-speaking arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 can be interfered with only on the limited statutory grounds for setting it aside, and contractual clauses of finality cannot be used to defeat an arbitrator's adjudication on claims arising from wrongful cancellation unless the award is shown to fall within those grounds.

---