PETITIONER: S.S JATLEY Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLEGE OF VOCATIONAL STUDIES DATE OF JUDGMENT17/09/1993 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. SINGH N.P. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 402 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1.By order dated 9-10-1987 of this Court, Hon’ble Mr
Justice A.C. Gupta, one of the former Judges of this Court
was appointed by consent as a sole arbitrator to decide
private dispute between the parties pending in the civil
suit.
403
The learned Judge after giving opportunities to the parties
in his award dated 30-3-1992 found as under:
“I have found that the claimant M/s S.S.
Jatley is entitled to realise from the
respondent, College of Vocational Studies, Rs
9023 by way of refund of security deposit
(Claim A); Rs 9087.70 and Rs 78,996.44 as
balance payment for work done and as value of
materials left at site (Claim B); and Rs
36,909 as value of Tools and Plants taken over
by the respondent (Claim B-1), totalling Rs
1,34,016.14. On the counter-claim of
respondent, I have held that a sum of Rs
1,08,000 is payable by the claimant due to his
failure to construct the college building in
time forcing the respondent to pay for the
rented accommodation.
Setting off the counter-claim against the
claim, I award a sum of Rs 26,016.14, rounded
off to Rs 26,016 (Rupees Twenty-six thousand
and sixteen) only in favour of claimant M/s
S.S. Jatley. This sum will carry interest at
the rate of 18% per annum from the date of
this award till it is made the rule of court
or till the date of realisation, whichever is
earlier. In the circumstances of the case 1
make no order for pendente lite interest.
Also, in the circumstances of the case
including the proportion of success of each,
the parties will bear their own costs of these
proceedings.”
2. An application has been made to make this award a rule of
the court. Objections have been filed by the appellant under
Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It is contended by
Shri D.V. Sehgal, the learned senior counsel for the
contractor that time is the essence of the contract. Under
clause 12 of the agreement, the respondent was under an
obligation to supply the drawings and specifications. They
committed breach of the contract and therefore, the
contractor was saddled with liability to incur additional
cost in erection of buildings which he had claimed in the
suit and became part of the claim in the arbitration, The
learned arbitrator had not considered these aspects of the
matters, though they expressly drew his attention during the
course of arguments. Therefore, non-consideration
constitutes an error apparent on the fact of the record
under Section 30 of the Act. In support thereof, he placed
reliance on K.P. Poulose v. State of Kerala’. We find no
force in the contention. An omission to refer the argument
addressed before the arbitrator is not a misconduct. But the
arbitrator is guilty if he ignores the very material
document which throws abundant light on the matter in the
controversy or if be makes the award without perusing the
contract upon which the rights and liabilities of the
parties depend. But the award cannot be set aside unless it
appears on the face of the award that the arbitrator ignored
the material document. Admittedly, the terms of the contract
had not been made part of the award. Therefore this
Court cannot look into the terms of the contract to find as
to who is responsible for the breach of the contract. In the
award, the learned arbitrator has summarised the contentions
of the parties arising from the respective letters and
considered the claims in the part dealing with the claims
and counter-claims. Ultimately, it was concluded that a sum
of Rs 26,016.14 was found due and payable to the contractor.
This Court in the aforesaid judgment held in paragraph 6
that the legal misconduct which is complete if the
arbitrator on the face of the award arrives at an
inconsistent conclusion even on his own finding or arrives
at a decision by ignoring the very material documents which
throw abundant light
1 (1975) 2 SCC 236: 1975 Supp SCR 214
404
on the controversy to help a just and fair decision. In
this case, the learned Judge has meticulously drawn out the
contentions raised by the parties and had adverted to the
contention on perusing the record and the contract, the
foundation of the rights and liabilities and arrived at a
decision. We do not find any inconsistency in his finding.
On the other hand, a meticulous analysis would disclose that
the learned Judge had applied his mind to the controversy
placed before him and arrived at a decision in the award.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any error apparent
on the face of the award warranting interference. The
objections are overruled. The award is made rule of the
Court.