2007 (9) TMI 693

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondent, Union of India, issued tender dated 29th June, 1989 for purchase of oil. The appellant offered to supply 1600 metric tons of different categories of oil vide quotation dated 15th July, 1989, the details of which are as under: 1. 200 MT @ 24,150/- per MT by 31.8.89 (Refined Cotton Seed Oil) 2. 500 MT @ ₹ 21,500/- per MT by 31.8.1989 (Rapeseed Oil) 3. 300 MT @ ₹ 24,550/- per MT by 30.9.1989 (Refined Soyabeen Oil) 4. 500 MT @ ₹ 22,000/- per MT by 30.9.1989 (Rapeseed Oil). 3. The respondent-Union of India accepted the offer given by the appellant and consequently the respondent issued tender in the form of a letter dated 22nd August, 1989. The appellant failed to supply the oil as per the delivery schedule. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of rapeseed oil was not debarred or restricted. Therefore, even the plea of force majeure clause taken by the appellant was found to be totally devoid of any merit. 6. The arbitrator in the instant case gave a non- speaking award, which was made rule of the court by the order of the learned Single Judge on 21st February, 2006. The appellant preferred FAO (O.S.) No. 206/2006, before the Division Bench of the High Court, which was also dismissed on 17th April, 2006. The appellant has preferred special leave petition against the said impugned judgment of the Division Bench. This Court granted leave on 14th May, 2007. 7. The Division Bench, in the impugned judgment, while affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge has correctly obser....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the award, and it is not open to the court to probe the mental process of the arbitrator and speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator as to what impelled him to arrive at his conclusion. Furthermore, the reasonableness of the arbitrator's reasons cannot be challenged. The arbitrator's appraisement of the evidence is never a matter for the court to entertain. 11. This Court in State of A.P. v. R.V. Rayanim (1990) 1 SCC 433, dealt with a non- speaking award. The court observed that it is not open to the court to probe the mental process of the arbitrator where he has not provided the reasoning for his decision. 12. This Court, in Bijendra Nath Srivastava v. Mayank Srivastava and Ors. AIR1994SC2562 in para 20 at pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to what impelled the arbitrator to arrive at his conclusion. It is also not possible to admit to probe the mental process by which the arbitrator has reached his conclusion where it is not disclosed by the terms of the award. Similar view has been taken in the following cases, namely, State of Bihar and Ors. v. Hanuman Mal Jain (1997)11SCC40 , P.V. Subha Naidu and Ors. v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. (1998)9SCC407 , Star Construction and Transport Co. and Ors. v. India Cements Ltd. [2001]1SCR1000 and D.D. Sharma v. Union of India (2004)5SCC325 . 15. The decided cases of this Court demonstrate that this Court has consistently taken the view that scope of interference in a non-speaking award is extremely limited. The Court cannot probe into the m....