Case: V.G. George Vs. Indian Rare Earths Ltd.

settle all problems and objections which arose in the course of mining work ?17 - Whether claimant suffered loss as mentioned in paragraph 14 of the State of Claim ?18 - Whether respondent is liable to make good the loss mentioned in issue No. 17 and if so, to what extent ?" 14. In respect of the above issues the arbitrator has given his findings which are as follows :- "15 - The allegation that six acres of land alone out of the mining area covered by the tender form was available for mining is not correct. In 243 acres of land covered by the tender form out of which 92 acres belonged to respondent, more than necessary area sufficient to mine and supply the contract quantity of 2,00,000 to 2,20,000 MT of raw sand was actually available for mining, but, on some days in April and except on one day, during the whole month of May 1980, mining of raw sand even in the available area and supply of raw sand from there were not possible, on some days partially and on other days wholly, on account of obstruction by kudikidappukars and local public.16 - Claimants right under the contract was purely personal, it did not amount to an interest in the 243 acres of land covered by the contract and he could not sue trangers in his own name in respect of that land, it was his responsibility to settle all problems and objections which arose in the course of the mining work between him and his mining workers, but not with strangers like kudikidappukars and local public who claimed either rights in the land or rights and privileges against the respondent, and it was respondents duty to see that the entire extent of mining area detailed in the tender form was available for mining and mining operations could be carried on there quety and without hindrance, and whenever complaint regarding obstruction was received respondent obstruction was received respondent tried to discharge that duty by appealing to public authorities for help, but without success.17-18 - Claimant suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 2,81,461.26 and respondent is liable to make good that loss." 15. The learned counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice Clause (c) of the tender notice which forms part of the contract between the parties. Clause (c) of the tender notice is stated as follows :- "(c) - The beach and inland deposits mentioned in Block Nos. 2, 4 and 6 may or may not be situated in Companys lands and hence it shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to obtain the consent of the owners in whose registered holdings the beach or inland deposits appear, before the Contractor begins to collect the sea washings or inland deposits as the case may be. An Indian Rate Earths Limited will not be responsible for the payment of any compensation to any individual on account of any claims resulting from such scrapping of sea washings or removal of inland deposits, it shall again be the responsibility of the Contractor to enter into agreements with the owners of registered holdings whose lands the Contractor may be required to utilise for the purpose of his successful execution of this contract, and the Company will not in any manner be responsible or liable for all or any of the claims for compensation by the said land owners." 16. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that as the award is non-speaking one the High Court erred in law in going into the facts of the case. On the other hand it has been urged on behalf of the respondents that the present award cannot be said to be a non-speaking one as the findings of the arbitrator on each issue form part of the award. Ã¯7Â?3 Å 17. As stated above the award contains not only the sum awarded but also the case of the parties, issues framed, findings on each issue, therefore, we hold that the findings of the arbitrator on the issues are the part of the award and the court can look into the findings. 18. The petitioner has come to the findings that the entire mining area covered with tender was made available to the appellant but according to the arbitrator mining was not possible in some days in the month of April, 1980 and whole month of May, 1980 on account of obstructions by kudikidappukars and local public. The above finding of the arbitrator is in respect of the issue No. 15 which forms part of the award. While awarding the amount the arbitrator did not take note of the above Clause (c) of the tender notice which is a part of the agreement and under which the respondent would not be liable for such obstruction. Therefore, we hold that the amount awarded under Claim No. 3 is beyond the scope of the agreement entered into between the parties and, therefore, the awarded amount in respect of Claim No. 3 cannot be sustained.19. Claim No. 9 is in respect of escalation. It is not disputed at bar that in the agreement entered into between the parties there was no escalation clause. The arbitrator has come to the clear finding that the present appellant was not pressurised by respondent No. 1 to agree 10% hike in the wages of the mining workers as recorded in the findings in respect of issue No. 34. In issue No. 35 the arbitrator has recorded that the present appellant acceded to for raise in the wages of mining workers.20. The amount awarded under Claim No. 9 is not only beyond the scope of the agreement but also contract to the findings recorded by the arbitrator.21. Therefore, we hold that the arbitrator has misconducted himself in the proceedings and, therefore, the award is liable to be set aside on the ground of legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator under Section 30 of the Act.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]16. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that as the award is non-speaking one the High Court erred in law in going into the facts of the case. On the other hand it has been urged on behalf of the respondents that the present award cannot be said to be a non-speaking one as the findings of the arbitrator on each issue form part of the award. Ã¯7Â?3 s stated above the award contains not only the sum awarded but also the case of the parties, issues framed, findings on each issue, therefore, we hold that the findings of the arbitrator on the issues are the part of the award and the court can look into the findings.The petitioner has come to the findings that the entire mining area covered with tender was made available to the appellant but according to the arbitrator mining was not possible in some days in the month of April, 1980 and whole month of May, 1980 on account of obstructions by kudikidappukars and local public. The above finding of the arbitrator is in respect of the issue No. 15 which forms part of the award. While awarding the amount the arbitrator did not take note of the above Clause (c) of the tender notice which is a part of the agreement and under which the respondent would not be liable for such obstruction. Therefore, we hold that the amount awarded under Claim No. 3 is beyond the scope of the agreement entered into between the parties and, therefore, the awarded amount in respect of Claim No. 3 cannot be sustained.19. Claim No. 9 is in respect of escalation. It is not disputed at bar that in the agreement entered into between the parties there was no escalation clause. The arbitrator has come to the clear finding that the present appellant was not pressurised by respondent No. 1 to agree 10% hike in the wages of the mining workers as recorded in the findings in respect of issue No. 34. In issue No. 35 the arbitrator has recorded that the present appellant acceded to for raise in the wages of mining workers.20. The amount awarded under Claim No. 9 is not only beyond the scope of the agreement but also contract to the findings recorded by the arbitrator.21. Therefore, we hold that the arbitrator has misconducted himself in the proceedings and, therefore, the award is liable to be set aside on the ground of legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator under Section 30 of the Act.