FA/1446/1991 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1446 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI ========================================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= =\ STATE OF GUJARAT Versus SURYAKANT P PATEL ========================================================= Appearance : MS DARSHANA PANDIT, ASST. GOVT. PLEADER for Appellant. MR KG SUKHWANI for the respondent. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI Date : 15/01/2008 FA/1446/1991 2/6 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT The State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act against the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur dated 26th April 1990 in Special Civil Suit No. 415 of 1988 whereby the application, Exh.18, and the objections raised therein were rejected and the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, with certain modifications, was made rule of the Court. Ms. Pandit, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the State has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the award given by the Arbitrator Shri Iyengar was non-speaking and unreasoned award. Learned AGP submitted that the question with regard to the validity of the unreasoned and non-speaking award is awaiting the determination by the larger Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court. She further submitted that the learned Civil Judge has not taken into consideration the contention raised before the Court in its true perspective while dismissing the application, Exh.18, and the objections raised therein. The learned Judge has erred in not appreciating the objections raised by the State that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to award pendente lite interest. It is also overlooked by the learned Judge that the Arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction in considering claims which were not within his purview. Learned AGP further submitted that the learned Judge has not appreciated the contentions raised on behalf of the State, more particularly with reference FA/1446/1991 3/6 JUDGMENT to claim No.3 and the costs of the arbitration. She further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have held that the award passed by the Arbitrator was without examining and considering the pleading of factual aspects and the evidence as well as documents available on the record of the case and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. The learned AGP further submitted that even the costs awarded to the tune of Rs.5000/- is on the higher side. Thus, it is submitted by the learned AGP that the impugned judgment and order is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed. Mr. K.G. Sukhwani, appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently submitted that both the parties had agreed to refer the matter to the Arbitrator in order to resolve the entire dispute. The Arbitrator has, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the State as well as by the respondent and perusing the entire gamut of documents produced before him, passed the award, and, therefore, no interference was made by the learned trial Judge, and in that view of the matter, the award passed by the Arbitrator and confirmed by the learned Civil Judge with certain modifications requires to be upheld. Mr. Sukhwani, learned advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD. V/S. EASTERN ENGG. ENTERPRISES reported in (1999) 9 SCC 283 and submitted that the jurisdiction of the Court is very limited in the case when the matter is referred to the Arbitrator, and the Court cannot speculate as to reasons or probe mental process of the arbitrator. He further submitted that the court can set aside the award only if the arbitrator has FA/1446/1991 4/6 JUDGMENT acted beyond his jurisdiction. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, learned advocate submitted that it s a fit case where no interference is called for and the appeal preferred by the State deserves to be dismissed. This Court has heard Ms. D.S. Pandit, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant State and Mr. Sukhwani, learned advocate for the respondent at length and in great detail. This Court has also undertaken a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case as well as the entire evidence on record with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case. This Court has also perused the award passed by the Arbitrator and the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge while rejecting application Exh.18 and the objections raised therein. The Apex Court has laid down clear guidelines in the judgment in the case of Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd [supra] that the jurisdiction of the Court is very limited when the award passed by the Arbitrator is under challenge. The Court cannot speculate as to reasons or probe mental process of arbitrator. As per the Apex Court, the Court can set aside the award only if the Arbitrator has acted beyond his jurisdiction. In the present case, Shri M.S. Iyengar was appointed as Sole Arbitrator by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad [Rural] at Mirzapur by order dated 28.03.1984 in C.M.A. NO. 283 of 1983 for adjudication of disputes arising out of Agreement No. B-1/1 of 1978-79 with FA/1446/1991 5/6 JUDGMENT respect to the work of construction of Approach Road from Dam site to Deo Irrigation Scheme joining Rameshwar- Indrol Road. As per the said order, the Arbitrator was required to decide the disputes falling within the scope of clause 30 of the agreement. The arbitrator entered upon the reference in the said arbitration on 23.05.1985 and he made an award on 30th May 1988 and submitted the same before the Court. On a bare perusal of the reference made to the Arbitrator, it becomes clear that by the very terms of the order passed in CMA NO. 283 of 1983, the Arbitrator was called upon to decide as to whether particular dispute would fall within the scope of section 30 or not and if yes, to determine the said claim. This particular order was never challenged and, therefore, both the parties had consented before the Arbitrator to determine as to whether the particular dispute would fall within the purview of clause 30 or not. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when both the parties had agreed to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator and as the Arbitrator, after going through the entire gamut of record of the case decided the matter which was referred to him, there was no scope for challenge of that award unless the Arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction. Even on a bare perusal of the award of the Arbitrator as well as the judgment rendered by the trial Court, I do not find that the Arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the award. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the reported decision in Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd [supra] is also very clear. The State has not made out any case for interference in the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur dated 26th April 1990 in Special Civil Suit No. 415 of 1988. FA/1446/1991 6/6 JUDGMENT In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, in my considered view, no interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The award of the Arbitrator, as modified by the learned Civil Judge, is confirmed. Decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to costs. mathew [H.B.ANTANI, J.]