Case: Union Of India Vs. Jai Narain Misra

1. The respondent Jai Narain Misra is a building contractor. On September 2, 1944, he entered into a contract (No. ES. 2944) with the Government of India represented by the Chief Engineer, Central Command, for the construction of additional quarters at T. P. 2 Kanpur. The contract contained an arbitration clause. Disputes between the parties relating to the contract were referred to Col. H. T. Faithful. The arbitrator made his award on May 19, 1947, On November 15, 1947 the respondent made an application for modifying the award and for remitting it to the arbitrator for re-consideration. On January 5, 1948, he filed additional objections. By his order dated May 26, 1952 the Second Civil Judge, Kanpur, dismissed the objections and pronounced judgment according to the award. The respondent filed an appeal against the order under Section 39 ofthe Arbitration Act, 1940. By an order dated December 5, 1962, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the award on the ground that it was vague and uncertain. The present appeal has been filed by the Union of India on the strength of a certificate granted by the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
7. The arbitrator made an award in respect of the second item under some misapprehension. The security deposit of Rs. 6000 had been returned to the respondent and there was no dispute about it before the arbitrator. In the circumstances, the arbitrator had no authority to award Rs. 6000 to the respondent on account of the security deposit. This part of the award is clearly separable and may be struck out. Moreover, the award of Rs. 6000 is to the advantage of the respondent; and the Court usually declines to set aside an award at the instance of a party who has not suffered any injury by thefind also that the award of Rs. 6000 is now of no consequence. After the award was made, the respondent received a sum of Rs. 100594/7/- in full settlement of the award, presumably after giving the government credit for the sum of Rs. 6000 already received by him.8. We therefore hold that there is no ground for setting aside the award. The award is not vague and/or uncertain and does not suffer from any other infirmity.9. Mr. Mehta also contended that (1) the appeal before the High Court was not maintainable under Sections 17 and 39 ofthe Arbitration Act, 1940 and (2) the respondent having received payments in full settlement of the award was estopped from challenging it. We do not find it necessary to decide these points in view of our conclusion that the award is not liable to be set aside.