1986 JTR(SC) 452
1987 AIR(SC) 81 ; 1986 12 AllLR 692 ; 1987 1 ArbLR 29 ; 1987 1 AWC 101 ; 1987 1 GLH 185 ; 1986 JT 818 ; 1986 1 JT 818 ; 1987 1 KLT(SN) 9 ; 1986 2 Scale 756 ; 1986 Supp SCC 506 ; 1987 1 UJ 247 ; 1987 KHC 284
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA R.N. MISRA AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 1846 (N) of 1972, D/-13-11-1986.
M/s. Hindustan Tea Co., Appellant
versus
M/s. K. Sashikant and Co. and another, Respondents.
Act
Referred
:ARBITRATION ACT : S.33, S.30
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
CONTRACT ACT : S.70
Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 30 and 33 - Contract Act, 1872 - Section 70 - Managment - Tea Estate - An application was filed before Calcutta High Court for appointment of a Reciver in regard to managment of two Tea Estates by name Hettichera Tea Estate and subong Tea Estate – Held, Objections which have been raised against Award are such that they cannot indeed be, taken into consideration within limited ambit of challenge admissible under scheme of Arbitration Act - Under law, Arbitrator is made final arbiter of dispute between parties - Award is not open to challenge on ground that Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion for he failed to appreciate facts - Strong reliance was placed by appellants learned counsel, on an old Madras decision in Yogambal Boyee Ammani Ammal v. Naina Pillai Markayar (1909) ILR 33 Mad 15. In our view, on the facts of this case challenge to Award is not permissible by taking stand that Arbitrator acted contrary to the provisions of S. 70 of Contract Act - In these premises objection filed to Award has to be rejected – Court direct Award to be made a rule of Court – Order accordingly.
Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 30 and 33 - Contract Act, 1872 - Section 70 - Managment - Tea Estate - An application was filed before Calcutta High Court for appointment of a Reciver in regard to managment of two Tea Estates by name Hettichera Tea Estate and subong Tea Estate – Held, Objections which have been raised against Award are such that they cannot indeed be, taken into consideration within limited ambit of challenge admissible under scheme of Arbitration Act - Under law, Arbitrator is made final arbiter of dispute between parties - Award is not open to challenge on ground that Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion for he failed to appreciate facts - Strong reliance was placed by appellants learned counsel, on an old Madras decision in Yogambal Boyee Ammani Ammal v. Naina Pillai Markayar (1909) ILR 33 Mad 15. In our view, on the facts of this case challenge to Award is not permissible by taking stand that Arbitrator acted contrary to the provisions of S. 70 of Contract Act - In these premises objection filed to Award has to be rejected – Court direct Award to be made a rule of Court – Order accordingly.
B.P.MAHESHVARI, D.P.MUKHERJI, S.M.KACKER, SHANKAR GOPAL PAGIRE
Judgment
R.N. MISRA, J. :- This appeal is by special leave. An application was filed before the Calcutta High Court for appointment of a Reciver in regard to managment of two Tea Estates by name Hettichera Tea Estate and subong Tea Estate. By the impugned order dt. 20th June, 1972, the High Court directed:
"The Official Reciver is apponted Reciver in terms of the prayer (a) of the petition. Mr tara Chand Agrwalla of the respondent firm and Dineshbhai Patel of the petitioner firm are appointed joint managers under the Official Receiver to run and manage the day to day business at the two tea gardens."
During the pendency of this appeal, on 27-2-1974, this Court made the following Order:
"The application is not opposed. Mr. G. K Mitter, retired Judge of the Supreme Court is appointed as Umpire. Parties agree that they would pay the Umpires fee in equal share. No time limit is fixed for making the Award by Umpire."
Parties appeared before the Umpire and after protracted hearing of the matter, spread over several years the Umpire made his Award, dt. 30th June, 1982 and the same has now come before the Court. The appellant filed an application under Ss. 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act praying to the Court that the Award may be set aside either as a whole or in part keeping the several objections raised in the petition in view.
2. The Award is reasoned one. The objections which have been raised against the Award are such that they cannot indeed be, taken into consideration within the limited ambit of challenge admissible under the scheme of the Arbitration Act. Under the law, the Arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties. The Award is not open to challenge on the ground that the Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion for he failed to appreciate facts. Strong reliance was placed by the appellants learned counsel, on an old Madras decision in Yogambal Boyee Ammani Ammal v. Naina Pillai Markayar (1909) ILR 33 Mad 15. In our view, on the facts of this case challenge to the Award is not permissible by taking the stand that the Arbitrator acted contrary to the provisions of S. 70 of the Contract Act. In these premises the objection filed to the Award has to be rejected. We direct the Award to be made a rule of the Court. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout.
Order accordingly.