ivil Appeal Nos
1500 01 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 26101987 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No 1207 and 1206 of 1987
YP Rao for the Appellants
HN Salve Hardeep Singh and Raian Karanjawala for the Respondent
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J Special leave granted and the appeals are disposed of by the judgment herein
These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay confirming the decision of the learned single Judge dismissing the application for setting aside the award
It appears that there was a Charter Party Agreement entered into between the parties in December 1981 signed by the representative of the President of India and the respondent Shipping Company for transportation of bulk cargo from Australia to 368 India
Thereafter in February 1982 the agreement was sent to the President s representative at New Delhi for signing the same
The said cargo was delivered at the port of Tuticorin and not at Calcutta
The respondent company raised disputes regarding several items and claimed an amount of Rs90685486 as demurrage and Rs788143 against over time charges
As per the said agreement the disputes were referable to arbitration by joint arbitration of two Arbitrators one each to be appointed by each of the parties
The appellant appointed one Shri JL Puri as its arbitrator with a specific condition that he shall give reasons for the award
The respondent company appointed one Shri PS Gokhale as its arbitrator
Thereafter the award was made and the same was signed by Shri Gokhale at Bombay on 11th June 1986 and Shri JL Puri at Calcutta on 18th of June 1986
The award did not speak
As such there is no reason apparent from the award
The award however directed the appellant Corporation to pay lumpsum amount of Rs622589 to the respondent company
The award was filed in the High Court of Bombay
Notice of such filing was received by the appellant Corporation at Delhi
The appellants filed objection petition before the High Court of Bombay for setting aside the award
It was contended that the High Court of Bombay had no jurisdiction to entertain the filing of the award since no cause of action arose at Bombay
The appellants contended that the award was liable to be set aside for reasons of misconduct irregularity and lack of competence
In both the appeals similar claims have been made
It appears however that there is a specific finding made by the learned single Judge that the agreement was signed at Bombay which was affirmed by the Division Bench
We find no material to impeach this finding
It was next contended as it has been contended before the Division Bench that there was a mandate given to the arbitrators to state reasons for the award but it was not complied with
It is true that the appellants had written a letter to their arbitrator stating that he should record reasons for the award
Copies of this letter were also sent to the arbitrator appointed by the respondents
There was therefore no mandate given by both parties to the arbitration agreement to both arbitrators to state reasons
The arbitrators could not act on the mandate of one of the parties
This contention of the appellants cannot be accepted
It was next contended that the arbitrators should have given reasons
Unreasoned award is bad
It is true that the recent trend is to have reasoned awrds
Indeed a matter is pending in this Court on this aspect
The appointed arbitrators were men of commerce and they 369 arrived at a consensual figure
Though the recent trend is that the award should be a reasoned award and that would be in consonance with the principles of natural jusice in a case of this nature where two men of commerce in respect of money claim under Charter Party Agreement entered into arbitration and the award has awarded a lumpsum amount it appears to us that the reasons are not far to seek
It is really an accounting of the rival claims of the parties
In that view of the matter and in the facts of this case we find that there is no legal misconduct as such in not giving reasons
In the premises the High Court was right in dismissing the objections
Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly
There will be no order as to costs
NPV Appeals dismissed


Summary:
 In respect of sale of raw petroleum coke by petitioner to respondent there were three agreements providing for sale petitioner s right to shift raw petroleum coke at the risk and expense of the respondent in case of failure of Respondent to shift the same as agreed and the Respondent s liability to pay interest on the value of stock not uplifted
There was default in payment and petitioner stopped supplies to respondent filed a suit and obtained an order of attachment of stocks of raw petroleum coke to the extent of Rs6 crores of the Respondent
The respondent filed an appeal as also an application for stay of the suit under Section 34 of the 
Meanwhile the petitioner terminated the agreement
Thereafter the respondent filed a suit and the Court passed an order for restoration of supplies
On an appeal by the petitioner this Court stayed the order of restoration of supplies and recorded the compromise terms pursuant to which all proceedings were withdrawn by the parties
The petitioner s claim were referred to an Arbitrator who passed an interim award according to which the petitioner was not entitled to any interest nor any shifting charges
The petitioner challenged the said award when it was filed in High Court
The High Court dismissed the petition and this special leave petition is against the High Court s order
It was contended before this Court that the Arbitrator has failed to give a reasoned award and so it is bad in law
Dismissing the special leave petition this Court  HELD 1
It is obligatory in England now after the Arbitration  that the award should give reasons
The purpose of Section 12 of the Act requiring the tribunal to furnish a statement of reasons if requested to do so before it gave its decision is to enable the person whose property or whose interests were affected to know if the decision was against him what the reasons were
435B C Law of Arbitration  by Justice RS Bachawat
First Edition 1983 pp
320 and 321 referred to
21 In India there has been a trend that reasons should be stated in the award
The reasons that are set out must be reasons which will not only be intelligible but also deal with the substantial points that have been raised
When the arbitration clause required the arbitrator to give a reasoned award the sufficiency of the reasons depend upon the facts of the particular case
He is not bound to give detailed reasons
435C D 22 The Court does not sit in appeal over the award and review the reasons
The Court can set aside the award only if it is apparent from the award that there is no evidence to support the conclusions or if the award is based upon any legal proposition which is erroneous435D E 23 The award in question is unassailable
According to the Arbitrator because of the letter dated 18th October 1982 of the petitioner addressed to the Respondent stating that if the outstandings and interest are not paid further supplies would not be made has been acted upon by the petitioner which had not delivered any coke to the respondent or made any offer to do so the petitioner was not entitled to the interest in respect of the period from 18th October 1982 onwards nor to shifting charges in respect of any shifting on or after 18th October 1982
On this reasoning he had given the award
How the Arbitrator has drawn inference is apparent from the reasons
No proposition was stated in the aforesaid reasons which could be objected to as an error of law
The reasons given by the Arbitrator meet the requirements of a reasoned award
It is apparent that the arbitrator has not acted irrelevantly and unreasonably
432E G 434G H 24 Arbitration procedure should be quick and that quickness of the decision can always be ensured by insisting that short intelligible indications of the grounds should be available to find out the mind of the arbitrator for his action
This was possible in the instant case where the arbitrator has spoken his mind and he is clear as to how he acted 428 and why he acted in that manner434H 435A Champsey Bhara and Company vs Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd AIR  Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd vs Shri C Rajasekhar Rao 3 SC 239 Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Company of India Ltd vs Union of India 1976 Suppl
SCR 489 Rohtas Industries Ltd and Another vs Rohtas Industries Staff Union and others  and Dewan Singh vs Champat Singh   referred to Bremer Handelsgesellschaft vs Westzucker 1981 2 Lloyd s Law Reports 130 referred to