TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (1) TMI 355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he parties on certain terms. On 12th January, 1979, two contracts were awarded to the respondent No. 1 for Rs. 1,29,39,691 and Rs.94,30,435 which provided the dates of completion as February 1979 and the 3rd week of September, 1980 respectively. On 29th March, 1981 the respondent No. 1 filed the Civil Suit No. 588 of 1981 in the City Civil Court with regard to measurements recorded by the Deputy Engineer and alleged underpayments. On 4th June, 1981, the respondent No. 1 gave notice to the State Government and the petitioner-Board requesting for reference of the alleged disputes to the arbitrator under clause 30 of the agreement. On or about 8th July, 198 1 the respondent No. 1 gave notice under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called 'the Act') calling upon the petitioner to concur in the appointment of one Shri G.G. Vaidhya. On 21st July, 1981, he withdrew the Civil Suit No. 588 of 1981. On 6th August, 1981, the respondent No. 1 filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 231 of 1981 in the Court of Civil Judge, (SD), Ahmedabad for appointment of the said Shri G.G. Vaidhya as the sole arbitrator. On 7th November 1981, the petitioner filed reply contesting the arb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat both parties shall agree to extend time as and when necessary for competition of arbitration proceedings. That a formal agreement for arbitration shall be executed between the parties defining the scope of Arbitration. _ That the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 shall apply to the proceedings before this Sole Arbitrator." On 31st March, 1984, Shri M.D. Patel was appointed as the sole arbitrator jointly by the parties, and on 2nd April, 1984 he accepted his appointment and directed the parties to file their claim statements within 15 days. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed claim to the tune of Rs.4,92,20,683 and a counter-claim to the extent of Rs.26,87,217.40. On 22nd August, 1984 the parties appeared before the arbitrator after filing of claims and counterclaims. On 1st October, 1984 the petitioner filed an application before the arbitrator praying that preliminary issues be raised and decided first as to which of the disputes were arbitrable under clause 30 Of the agreement. On 8th July, 1985, a lumpsum award was made by the arbitrator, and on 19th July, 1985 the parties were informed about the signing of the award. On the same day the award filed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the numerous claims before the arbitrator, some of which, according to the petitioner, were ex facie not arbitrable and some were withdrawn including the claims for interest of Rs.54,61,073 and compound interest of Rs.82,26,039. and in the award no basis or indication was given as to which claim was rejected and further of the amount which was awarded as claim and what amount towards element of interest. It was, thirdly, contended that there was an error apparent on the face of the award inasmuch as the basis on which interest has been awarded has not been disclosed and whether the interest has been awarded from the date of the institution of the proceedings. It was, fourthly, contended that granting of interest pendente lite was contrary to the decision of this Court. It was, lastly, contended that non-speaking award had resulted in great prejudice inasmuch as against the claim of Rs. 1 lakh, Rs.57 lakhs have been awarded. The scope and extent of examination by the Court of the award made by an arbitrator has been laid down in various decisions. It has to be noted that there is a trend in modern times that reasons should be stated in the award though the question whether the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecide the matters, indicated that the parties had agreed to and the arbitrator had proceeded with the consent of the parties in deciding the issues before him and in not deciding the question of arbitrability as a separate, distinct and preliminary issue. The arbitrator has made his award beating all the aspects including the question of arbitrability in mind. It was contended before us that the arbitrator has made a non-speaking award. It was obliged to make a speaking award, it was submitted by terms of the order of this Court. We cannot sustain this submission because it is not obligatory as yet for the arbitrator to give reasons in his decision. The arbitrator, however, has in this case indicated his mind. It appears to us that the point that the non-speaking award is per se bad was not agitated before the High Court. We come to that conclusion from the perusal of the judgment under appeal though, however, this point has not been taken in the appellant's appeal. It is one thing to say that an award is unintelligible and is another to say that the award was bad because it was a non-speaking award. The point taken was that the award was unintelligible and not that it was non-spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to grant interest on judgment have been examined by this Court in Executive Engineer (Irrigation) Balimela and Ors. v. Abhaduta Jena & Ors., [1988] 1 SCC 418 which observations were also followed by this Court in State of Orissa & Ors. v. Construction India, [1987] Supp. SCC 709. In accordance with the principles stated therein and the facts in this case, it appears that the principal amount awarded is Rs.57,65,273. This is confirmed. In this case, 2nd April, 1984 is the date of the reference to arbitration, on 22nd August, 1984 the arbitrator entered upon the reference. 8th July, 1985 is the date of the award and 19th July, 1985, is the date of the publication of the award. The interest awarded, in the instant case, covers three periods: (i) 6th August, 1981 to 21st August, 1984 prior to the commencement of the arbitration proceedings; (ii) 22nd August, 1984 to 19th July, 1985 pendente lite; and (iii) 19th July, 1985 to 17th June, 1986 (date of award to date of decree). Having regard to the position in law emerging from the decision of this Court in Executive Engineer (Irrigation) Balimela & Ors. (supra) and section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and section 34 of the Code of ....