IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Arbitration Cases No. 31 of 2009 Judgment Reserved on 28.08.2009 Date of decision September 10th,2009 __________________________________________________________ Shyam Dass ….Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents _________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Shri Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Shri Janesh Mahajan, Central Government Counsel __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the award passed by the Superintending Engineer, Shimla Central Circle, CPWD on a claim having been preferred by the petitioner herein. The plaintiff-petitioner had prayed for an injunction against the respondents. The petitioner had pleaded that he was the owner in possession of a single storeyed building comprised in Khasra No. 341/306/1 and 341/306/2, measuring 3 biswas and 14 biswas, situated in Phati Tunon Kothi, 15/20, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu (HP). He was approached by the respondents through the Station Engineer, Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Shimla with a request that TV tower/machinery be installed on the land of the petitioner. A lease deed was executed between the parties. The plaintiff claimed eviction of the petitioner from the land and also increase in the lease money etc. Detailed pleadings were filed by the parties and evidence led before the Arbitrator. By his award dated 31.3.2009 the Arbitrator rejected the claim of the petitioner for eviction/ejectment, but allowed certain increase in the 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 lease money. Being aggrieved by the award, the plaintiff-petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Learned counsel appearing for the parties have made a number of submissions. Without entering into the respective contentions, this petition requires to be allowed on the ground that it is in violation of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act. Section 31 of the Act reads:- “31. Form and contents of arbitral award- (1) An arbitral award shall be made in writing and shall be signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), in arbitral proceedings with more than one arbitrator, the signatures of the majority of all the members of the arbitral tribunal shall be sufficient so long as the reason for any omitted signatures is stated. (3) The arbitral award shall state the reasons upon which it is based, unless- (a) the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given, or (b) the award is an arbitral award on agreed terms under Section 30.” The provisions of Section 31 (3) of the Act are mandatory. This matter already stands concluded by a judgment of this Court in Janki Ram Vs. State of H.P. 2008 (1) SLC 195. A reading of the award does not show that the Arbitrator has in any way adverted to the documentary or oral evidence on record and appreciate the arguments of the parties to grant or disallow any part of the claim. Merely saying that awarding a particular amount should be just without in any way referring to the evidence on record is not sufficient. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the assessment of rent made by expert/Engineer which I find on the record but has not been adverted as in the award. In addition, counsel refers to the evidence and submits that there is no discussion on its relevance or authenticity for acceptance or rejection. I am not referring to the arguments in detail as that would prejudice the case of the parties. It was incumbent for the arbitrator to have discussed the entire evidence and then 3 to have arrived at his independent conclusion. In this view of the matter, I find that the award is not a speaking award and is in violation of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, as aforesaid. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. The award challenged is quashed and set aside. Shri Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate, High Court of Himachal Pradesh will be the Arbitrator in this case and the parties shall appear before him on 22nd October, 2009 in his office at Marina annexe, Shimla. He shall proceed to determine the controversy between the parties in accordance with law on the basis of the material already on record. The award passed by him shall be a speaking award where he will give reasons either accepting or rejecting the contentions raised by each party. His remuneration is consolidated and fixed at Rs. 30,000/- which shall be borne equally by the parties. In addition to the fee fixed, the learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to the miscellaneous and transportation charges etc. which shall also be borne equally by both the parties. If the parties so desire they can fix the venue of arbitration according to their convenience as mutually agreed to between them. The proceedings shall be concluded preferably before 31st March, 2010. A direction is issued to the Registry to make the record of arbitration available to the Arbitrator will before that date. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator forthwith. September 10th , 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge