TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 902
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-1985 to the effect that the company was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 8,51,315 together with the interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 28-9-1982 from the trust. The parties did not lead any oral evidence before the Arbitrator and relied only on the correspondence between them. The award passed by the Arbitrator did not contain any reasons and is a non-speaking one. The Court of Sub-Judge, Jagatsinghpur, on receipt of the award, issued notices to the parties. The trust filed objections challenging the award on various grounds. The Court after considering the objections under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('the Act') upheld them and set aside the award. Aggrieved by the same, the company filed the miscellaneous appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and made the award a rule of the Court subject to the modification as to the award of interest as indicated in the order. Hence the trust has filed this Civil Appeal No. 3683 of 1996 challenging the same in this Court. The company has filed Civil Appeal No. 4144 of 1996 to the extent it was denied interest. 3. Shri Gobind Das, the learned senior counsel for the Trust urged tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of claim filed by the claimants, written statement and counter-claim filed by the opposite parties, documents filed by parties and having considered the objections raised by the parties at different stages of hearing and having carefully considered the documents/evidence on record and arguments of learned advocates of the parties assisted by their respective clients I make the following awards. Unique Builders Ltd., the claimant is entitled to receive from Paradeep Port Trust (Respondent No. 3) a sum of Rs. 8,51,315 (Rupees Eight Lakhs fifty one thousand three hundred fifteen only) with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum with effect from 28th September, 1982. The opposite Party are directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 60 days. The counter-claim made by the opposite Parties 1, 2 and Paradeep Port Trust is disallowed." 8. The contents of this award also clearly indicate that fair and sufficient opportunity was given to the parties by the Arbitrator. This again shows that there was no violation of principle of natural justice in passing the award. 9. The arbitration clause contained in the agreement entered into bet-ween the parties reads thus : "........
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions contained in the Act, it is clear that generally an award passed by the Arbitrator is considered binding between the parties for the reason that the parties select the Arbitrator and powers of the Court to set aside the award are restricted to cases set out in section 30. It is not open to the Courts to guess or speculate reasons for the award, when it is non-reasoned. Courts cannot attempt to investigate the mental process by which the Arbitrator arrived at conclusion where it is not visible from the award. The jurisdiction of Courts including High Courts is not independent of the statute. The Arbitrator's award is final both on facts as well as law. There is no appeal from his verdict. However, an award can be set aside only in situations specified in sections 30 and 33. In the light of law already settled by this Court, we consider it unnecessary to cite long list of decisions in this regard. We will refer to few of them, including those relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions, hereinafter. 12. In Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Seth v. Chintamanrao Balaji AIR 1965 SC 214, this Court, has stated that : "18. An award made b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Arbitrator disregarding the terms of the reference or the arbitration agreement or the terms of the contract and states that in such a case it would be jurisdictional error, which requires ultimately to be decided by the Court. This has no application to the present case as it is not shown to us how the award was made by the Arbitrator disregarding the terms of the reference or the arbitration agreement or the terms of the contract. Clause (i) also does not help the trust having regard to the facts of the case in hand and the award made by the Arbitrator based on documentary evidence. It is not a case where the Arbitrator has acted arbitrarily, irrationally, capriciously or independently of the contract. It is difficult for us to take a view that there has been a deliberate departure or conscious disregard of the contract to say that the Arbitrator misconducted himself. The other clauses contained in the same paragraph, if applied to the facts of the case on hand, support the company. 17. This Court in Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd. AIR 1967 SC 1030, has held that the Arbitrator could give a lump sum award and that he would not be bound to give a....