TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (7) TMI 1182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 30 and hence, the petition for special leave to appeal to this court. 3. Section 30 was rather restrictive in its operation and the use of the expression 'shall' in the main body of the section made it mandatory to the court that the award of an Arbitrator shall not be set aside excepting for the reasons as mentioned therein namely : (a)Arbitrator or Umpire has misconducted himself; (b)The award has been made or passed after the supersession of the Arbitration or the proceedings becoming invalid; (c)Award has been improperly procured or otherwise invalid. These three specific provisions thus can only be taken recourse to in the matter of setting aside of award and the law is so well settled on this score, that we also do not feel it expedient to dilate on the issue excepting recording that since the parties chose their own arbitrators to adjudicate the disputes between them, the parties cannot object to such an adjudication or decision either upon the law or on the facts except however as envisaged in terms of section 30 since repealed and as noticed above. 4. Needless to record that there exists a long catena of cases through which the law seems to be rather w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t or in the event the award itself or in a document actually incorporated in it, there is found some legal proposition which stands out to be the basis of the award and which is erroneous. Ralliaram's decision expressly records that the civil courts cannot exercise apparent power over the decision of an arbitrator, wrong or right irrespective (excepting however the situation noticed above). 6. In Jivraj Bhai U.S. v. Chintaman Rao Balaji [1964] 5 SCR 480 it has also been laid down that it is not open to court to speculate, where no reasons are given by the Arbitrator as to what impelled the Arbitrator to arrive at his conclusion and it is not open to the court to attempt to assess the mental process by which the Arbitrator has reached his conclusion where it is not disclosed by the terms of the award. Law thus seems to be well-settled on the score of exercise of jurisdiction of law courts as regards interference with an award of Arbitrator or Umpire as the case may be. 7. Turning attention on to the factual matrix of the matter in issue, the records depict that by reason of certain disputes, the appellant herein invoked the arbitration clause and appointed an Arbitrator togeth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lsewhere. Learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, right in his submission that the impugned award amounts to putting a premium on dishonesty, and rewards the plaintiff who is responsible for repeated breaches of the contract for mala fide reasons. I am, therefore, unable to uphold the award, and is fit to be set aside, being an '...otherwise invalid' award in terms of section 30(a) of the Act." By reason of the above this special leave petition has been filed wherein notices have been issued and the appeal is disposed of upon leave being granted as above. 9. Mr. Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal rather strongly contended that the High Court in an appeal from the order of the Ist Subordinate Judge, Bokaro in making the award, the rule of court ought not to have interfered with the same neither High Court had any authority or jurisdiction to deal with the matter as it has been so done. It is on this score that appellant herein placed strong reliance on the decision of this court in Arosan Enterprises Ltd.'s case (supra). The respondent on the other hand with however equal vehemence and zest contended upon reliance on the judgment of this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ording of facts by this court in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 stand out singularly singular distinguishing feature between in the case of V.G. George (supra) and the appeal under consideration before this court presently. For convenience sake, the above noted paragraphs are set out hereinbelow : "11. Coming to the present appeal we find that in the impugned award the arbitrator has stated the case of the parties, the issues framed by him, his findings on each issue and the amount awarded. We may also state here that in the counter-affidavit dated 23-5-1983 filed by the present appellant before the learned Sub-Judge it had been clearly stated that the contract is evidenced by three integrated documents namely : (i) render dated 3-5-1979; (ii) work order dated 15-5-1979; and (iii) agreement dated 24-3-1979. 12. Out of the claims under 10 heads the arbitrator awarded amount under claims 3 and 9 of the appellant. Out of 51 issues framed by the arbitrator. Issues 15 to 18 were in respect of claim 3 and issues 31 to 37 were in respect of claim 9. We quote below Issues 15 to 18 in respect of claim 3: "15. Whether six acres alone out of the mining area covered by the tender form were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....blic authorities for help, but without success. 17-18. Claimant suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 2,81,461.26 and the respondent is liable to make good that loss." (p. 765) 11. The factual narration in the case of V.G. George's (supra) as above makes it evident and thus distinguishable from the factual element of the present appeal and we need not dilate thereon in any further detail suffice it to record that the decision in the case of V.G. George (supra) does not have any manner of application both by reason of the observations of this court in paragraph 6 of the Report as noticed above, as also by reason of distinguishable factual feature, as such the decision does not lend any support to the respondent herein. 12. Similar is the situation pertaining to a decision of this court in Associated Engineering Co. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [1991] (4) SCC 93. The decision is clearly distinguishable since the Umpire made a speaking award with reference to claims and gave reasonings for awarding those claims. The fact situation in the case of Associated Engineering Co. (supra) depicts that Arbitrator has not only acted arbitrarily and irrationally but he has, in fact, (Ump....