Arbitral award protected by waiver, limited judicial review, and no further interest absent patent illegality or perversity.

A party that participates in arbitration with knowledge of an arbitrator's alleged disqualification, agrees to extension of time, and invites a decision without timely protest is treated as having acquiesced, so the challenge is barred by waiver and delay. The Court also reaffirmed that it will not reappraise evidence or interfere with an award merely because a different view is possible; where the arbitrators act within the reference, rely on the record, and give reasons, alleged misreading of evidence or lump sum damages does not justify setting aside the award absent patent illegality or perversity. Additional interest and an enhanced rate were also refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the award was liable to be invalidated on the ground that one of the arbitrators had allegedly become disqualified and misconducted himself; (ii) whether the award was liable to be set aside for alleged errors of fact and law, including misreading of evidence and improper lump sum damages; (iii) whether the respondent was entitled to further interest and enhanced rate of interest.

Issue (i): Whether the award was liable to be invalidated on the ground that one of the arbitrators had allegedly become disqualified and misconducted himself.

Analysis: The objection was held to be untenable because the appellant was aware of the relevant facts, participated in the arbitration proceedings without protest, agreed to extension of time, and invited a decision on the reference. On those facts, the appellant was treated as having acquiesced in the arbitrator's functioning. The additional objection was also found to be belated.

Conclusion: The award was not invalidated on this ground and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the award was liable to be set aside for alleged errors of fact and law, including misreading of evidence and improper lump sum damages.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to alleged misappreciation of contractual clauses, evidence, and documents. The arbitrators were found to have acted within the scope of reference, relied on materials on record, and given reasons for their findings. The Court reiterated that it would not reappraise evidence or interfere merely because another view was possible. A lump sum award was also held to be legally permissible, and the quantified damages were not shown to be so perverse or irrational as to justify interference.

Conclusion: The award was upheld and the objections to its validity were dismissed.

Issue (iii): Whether the respondent was entitled to further interest and enhanced rate of interest.

Analysis: Although an arbitrator may award interest pendente lite where the law permits, the Court declined to grant further interest from the earlier dates claimed or to enhance the rate. The quantified award was treated as having taken relevant circumstances into account, and the prayer for additional interest was rejected.

Conclusion: No further interest or enhanced rate of interest was awarded.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral award was sustained, the objections to its validity failed, and only the claim for additional interest was declined, with consequential directions concerning the award amount and discharge of the bank guarantee.

Ratio Decidendi: A party that participates in arbitration with knowledge of the alleged disqualification of an arbitrator and raises no timely protest is barred by acquiescence and waiver; further, an arbitral award will not be interfered with merely for alleged misappreciation of evidence or because the court might have reached a different view, unless patent illegality or perversity is shown on the face of the record.

---