Case: Union Of India Vs. Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd

out by this Court that the observations of Bose, J. in 1955-2 SCR 48 : (AIR 1955 SC 468 ), supra, were not intended to lay down such a broad and unqualified proposition (See Nachiappa Chettiar v. Subramaniam Chettiar, 1960-2 SCR 209 at p. 238 : (AIR 1960 SC 307 at p. 320) and Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh, 1961-3 SCR 676 at p. 695: (AIR 1961 SC 908 at p. 916). In 1955-2 SCR 48 (AIR 1955 SC 468 ), supra, the material facts were that the arbitrator had awarded interest on unliquidated damages for a period before the reference to arbitration and also for a period subsequent to the reference. The High Court set aside the award regarding interest on the ground that the claim for interest was not referred to arbitration and the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. In this Court, counsel for the appellant contended that the arbitrator had statutory power under the Interest Act of 1839 to award the interest and in any event, he had power to award interest during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings under S. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Bose, J. rejected this contention, but it should be noticed that the judgment of this Court in Thawardass case, 1955-2 SCR 48 : (AIR 1955 SC 468 ), does not deal with the question whether the arbitrator can award interest subsequent to the passing of the award if the claim regarding interest was referred to arbitration. In the present case, all the disputes in the suit, including the question of interest, were referred to the arbitrator for his decision. In our opinion, the arbitrator had jurisdiction, in the present case, to grant interest on the amount of the award from the date of the award till the date of the decree granted by Mallick, J. The reason is that it is an implied term of the reference that the arbitrator will decide the dispute according to existing law and give such relief with regard to interest as a Court could give if it decided the dispute. Though, in terms, S. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to arbitration proceedings, the principle of that section will be applied by the arbitrator for awarding interest in cases where a Court of law in a suit having jurisdiction of the subject-matter covered by S. 34 could grant a decree for interest. In Edwards v. Great Western Rly., (1851) 11 CB 588, one of the questions at issue was whether an arbitrator could or could not award interest in a case which was within S. 28 of the Civil Procedure Act, 1833. It was held by the Court of Common Pleas that the arbitrator, under a submission of all matters in difference, might award the plaintiff interest, notwithstanding the notice of action did not contain a demand of interest; and, further, that, assuming a notice of action to have been necessary, the want or insufficiency of such notice could not be taken advantage of, since the 5 and 6 Vict. C. 97, S. 3, unless pleaded specially. In the course of his Judgment Jervis, C. J. Observed :"A further answer would be, that this is a submission, not only of the action, but of all matters in difference; and the interest would be a matter in difference, whether demanded by the notice of action or not. If the arbitrator could give it, he might give it in that way, notwithstanding the want of claim of interest in the notice.". This clearly decides that, although the Civil Procedure Act, 1833, speaks in terms of a jury, and only confers upon a jury a discretionary right to give interest, none the less, if a matter was referred to an arbitrator - a matter with regard to which a jury could have given interest - an arbitrator may equally give interest, and that despite the language used in that Act. The principle of this case was applied by the Court of Appeal in Chandris v. Isbrandtsen-Moller Co., 1951-1 KB 240, and it was held that though in terms S. 3 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934 giving the Court power to award interest on any debt or damages did not apply to an arbitrator, it was an implied term of the contract that the arbitrator could award interest in a case where the Court could award it. It was pointed out by the Court of Appeal that the power of an arbitrator to award interest was derived from the submission to him, which impliedly gave him power to decide "all matters in difference" according to the existing law of contract, exercising every right and discretionary remedy given to a Court of law, that the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, which repealed S. 28 of the Civil Procedure Act, 1833, was not concerned with the powers of arbitrators and that the plaintiff was entitled to the interest awarded by the arbitrator. 6. The legal position is the same in India. In Bhowanidas Ramgobind v. Harasukhdas Balkishendas, AIR 1924 Cal 524 , the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Rankin and Mookerjee, JJ. held that the arbitrators had authority to make a decree for interest after the date of the award and expressly, approved the decision of the English cases-(1851) 11 CB 588, Sherry v. Oke. (1885) 3 Dowl 349 : 1 H and W 119 and Beahan v. Wolfe, (1832) 1 Al and Na 233. The same view has been expressed by this Court in a recent judgment in Firm. Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore, C. A. No. 878 of 1964, D/-19-8-1966 AIR 1967 SC 1030.We are accordingly of the opinion that the arbitrator had authority to grant interest from the date of the award to the date of the decree of Mallick, J. and Mr. Bindra is unable to make good his argument on this aspect of the case.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]In the present case, the affidavits filed by the parties before the arbitrator are not incorporated in the award and it is, therefore, not permissible for the Court to examine these affidavits in order to ascertain whether the arbitrator has committed any error of lawApplying the principle to the present case, it is manifest that there is no error of law on the face of the award and the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case must failThis clearly decides that, although the Civil Procedure Act, 1833, speaks in terms of a jury, and only confers upon a jury a discretionary right to give interest, none the less, if a matter was referred to an arbitrator - a matter with regard to which a jury could have given interest - an arbitrator may equally give interest, and that despite the language used in that Act. The principle of this case was applied by the Court of Appeal ins v. Isbrandtsen-Moller Co., 1951-1 KB240, and it was held that though in terms S. 3 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934 giving the Court power to award interest on any debt or damages did not apply to an arbitrator, it was an implied term of the contract that the arbitrator could award interest in a case where the Court could award it. It was pointed out by the Court of Appeal that the power of an arbitrator to award interest was derived from the submission to him, which impliedly gave him power to decide "all matters in difference" according to the existing law of contract, exercising every right and discretionary remedy given to a Court of law, that the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, which repealed S. 28 of the Civil Procedure Act, 1833, was not concerned with the powers of arbitrators and that the plaintiff was entitled to the interest awarded by the arbitratorWe are accordingly of the opinion that the arbitrator had authority to grant interest from the date of the award to the date of the decree of Mallick, J. and Mr. Bindra is unable to make good his argument on this aspect of the caseIt is not possible for us to accept this argument. The award of the arbitrator does not show on its face that the amount of Rs. 3,57,500 has been deducted from the bills submitted by the Company for the price of the bedsteads under the three contractsThere were conflicting statements of the parties in the affidavits filed by them before Mallick, J. in connection with the application for setting aside the award. The affidavit filed by the appellant, dated January 5, 1957 before the arbitrator suggests that at least part of the deductions were made from bills submitted by the Company in other contractsOn behalf of the appellant Mr. Bindra referred to the affidavits and the statements made before the arbitrator, but it is well settled that the Court has no jurisdiction to investigate into the merits of the case and to examine the documentary and oral evidence on the record for the purpose of finding out whether or not the arbitrator has committed an error of law and that the award of the arbitrator can be set aside on the ground of error of law on the face of the award only when in the award or in a document incorporated with it, as for instance a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his decision, there is found some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which is erroneousIn the present case, the affidavits filed by the parties before the arbitrator are not incorporated in the award and it is, therefore, not permissible for the Court to examine these affidavits in order to ascertain whether the arbitrator has committed any error ofn Hodgkinsonv. Fernie, (1857) 3 CB (NS) 189 at p.202, the law on this point has been clearly stated by William, J. as follows:"The law has for many years been settled, and remains so at this day, that, where a cause or matters in difference are referred to an arbitrator, whether a lawyer or a layman, he is constituted the sole and final Judge of all questions both of law and of fact. The only exceptions to that rule, are, cases where the award is the result of corruption or fraud, and one other, which though it is to be regretted, is now, I think, firmly established, viz., where the question of law necessarily arises on the face of the award, or upon some paper accompanying and forming part of the award. Though the propriety of this latter may very well be doubted, I think it may be considered as established."The decision of this case was approved by the Judicial Committee in Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., 50 Ind App 324 : (AIR 1923 PC 66), in which the appellants sold cotton to the respondent by a contract which contained a submission to arbitration of disputes as to quality, and a further clause submitting to arbitration all other disputes arising out of the contract. Cotton was delivered, but the respondents objected to its quality, and upon arbitration an allowance was awarded, the respondents thereupon rejected the cotton. The appellants claimed damages for the rejection. The dispute was referred to arbitration and the award recited that the contract was subject in the rules of the Bombay Cotton Trade Association, which were not further referred to; and that the respondents had rejected on the grounds contained in a letter of a certain date. That letter stated merely that as the arbitrators had made an allowance of a certain amount the respondents rejected the cotton. The High Court set aside the award, holding that it was bad on its face, in that under one of the rules of the Association the respondents were entitled to reject without liability. It was held on appeal by the Judicial Committee that the award could not be set aside and though the award recited that the contract was subject to the rules of the Bombay Cotton Trade Association, yet those rules were not so incorporated in the award as to entitle the Court to refer to them for ascertaining whether there was an error of 1aw on the face of the awardThis passage supports the argument of the appellant that interest cannot be awarded by the arbitrator after the date of the award but in later cases it has been pointed out by this Court that the observations of Bose, J. in2 SCR 48   : (AIR 1955 SC 468  ), supra, were not intended to lay down such a broad and unqualified proposition (See Nachiappa Chettiar v. Subramaniam Chettiar,2 SCR 209   at p. 238 : (AIR 1960 SC 307   at p. 320) and Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh,3 SCR 676   at p. 695: (AIR 1961 SC 908   at p. 916). In2 SCR 48   (AIR 1955 SC 468  ), supra, the material facts were that the arbitrator had awarded interest on unliquidated damages for a period before the reference to arbitration and also for a period subsequent to the reference. The High Court set aside the award regarding interest on the ground that the claim for interest was not referred to arbitration and the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claimIn this Court, counsel for the appellant contended that the arbitrator had statutory power under the Interest Act of 1839 to award the interest and in any event, he had power to award interest during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings under S. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Bose, J. rejected this contention, but it should be noticed that the judgment of this Court in Thawardass case,2 SCR 48   : (AIR 1955 SC 468  ), does not deal with the question whether the arbitrator can award interest subsequent to the passing of the award if the claim regarding interest was referred to arbitration. In the present case, all the disputes in the suit, including the question of interest, were referred to the arbitrator for his decision. In our opinion, the arbitrator had jurisdiction, in the present case, to grant interest on the amount of the award from the date of the award till the date of the decree granted by Mallick, J. The reason is that it is an implied term of the reference that the arbitrator will decide the dispute according to existing law and give such relief with regard to interest as a Court could give if it decided the dispute. Though, in terms, S. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to arbitration proceedings, the principle of that section will be applied by the arbitrator for awarding interest in cases where a Court of law in a suit having jurisdiction of ther covered by S. 34 could grant a decree for interest. Ins v. Great Western Rly., (1851) 11 CB588, one of the questions at issue was whether an arbitrator could or could not award interest in a case which was within S. 28 of the Civil Procedure Act, 1833. It was held by the Court of Common Pleas that the arbitrator, under a submission of all matters in difference, might award the plaintiff interest, notwithstanding the notice of action did not contain a demand of interest; and, further, that, assuming a notice of action to have been necessary, the want or insufficiency of such notice could not be taken advantage of, since the 5 and 6 Vict. C. 97, S. 3, unless pleaded specially. In the course of his Judgment Jervis, C. J. Observed :"A further answer would be, that this is a submission, not only of the action, but of all matters in difference; and the interest would be a matter in difference, whether demanded by the notice of action or not. If the arbitrator could give it, he might give it in that way, notwithstanding the want of claim of interest in the notice."6. The legal position is the same in India. In Bhowanidas Ramgobind v. Harasukhdas Balkishendas, AIR 1924 Cal 524  , the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Rankin and Mookerjee, JJ. held that the arbitrators had authority to make a decree for interest after the date of the award and expressly, approved the decision of the English) 11 CB 588,y v. Oke. (1885) 3 Dowl 349 : 1 H and W119 andn v. Wolfe, (1832) 1 Al and Na233. The same view has been expressed by this Court in a recent judgment in Firm. Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore, C. A. No. 878 of 1964,6 AIR 1967 SC 1030.