Union Of India vs Oriental Building & Furnishing ...
1998 Latest Caselaw 901 Del

JUDGMENT

S.N. Kapoor, J.

1. By this judgment I propose to dispose of S.No.1756/94 & I.A. 4635/85, objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act filed by objector/ respondents.

2.1. Facts in brief are as under :

2.2. An area of 2,743 sq. yards approximately of Northern Railway, New Delhi was leased out by the petitioner to respondent No.1 vide agreement dated 9th May, 1969. Subsequently the disputes arose between the parties. The respondent filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The dispute was referred accordingly vide order dated 24.4.1981 in Suit No. 363-A/1977 to Shri K.C. Tandon gave a speaking award on 24.9.1984. The petition was moved under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. Award has been filed.

2.3. The respondent filed objections under Section 30 vide I.A. 4635/85 inter alia on the ground that the Arbitrator misconducted the proceedings. The Arbitrator ought to have given a reasoned award in view of the fact that the matter involved was heavy and voluminous evidence had been recorded. The Arbitrator misconducted as well as committed error in not looking at the basic document of lease which gave the open land to use as open land. The award is said to be beyond the reference.

3.1. I have heard the parties Counsel. In so far as the question of non-speaking award is concerned, the contention of the learned Counsel for the objector Mr. Sandeep Sethi, is that award being non-speaking is liable to be set aside. He relies upon M/s. Bhilwara Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association & Ors., AIR 1982 Delhi 155. In that case a Single Judge of this Court observed as under :

"...In English Law, an award by an Arbitrator without reasons, even without adequate reasons, would be bad in law but not so in India. In international arbitration, the convention recognises the obligation to give reasons. While the rule that the arbitrator need give no reason for the award may have had its importance at one time, there is little doubt that the power to make a non speaking award must have given undue protection to considerable incompetence, arbitrariness and even dishonesty in the arbitral process..."

3.2. But with due deference to the learned Single Judge, I find it difficult to follow the judgment in view of the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court and specially the following observations made in Food Corporation of India Vs. Jagdish Chandra Saha, :

     "...No objection could be taken to an award merely on the  ground      that  no reasons have been stated therefor when  the  arbitration      clause did not contain any requirement to that effect." 

 

3.3. It  is not alleged in this case that there was any arbitration  agreement to the effect that the Arbitrator should give any reasoned award. 
 

4. Insofar as the appreciation of evidence is concerned in the absence of any specific requirement to give reasoned and speaking award, the Arbitrator may not give any reason. Being a Sole Judge of the facts and law involved in the case before him, his decision is not bound for review by the Court unless the objection taken by the learned Counsel of the award is apparent on the face of the award. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that no amount of rent could be fixed in the absence of any evidence, I feel, is totally misconceived. Mr. Sandeep Sethi very fairly conceded that the respondent did not lead any evidence about the rate of rent of the land in question. In arriving at the rate of rent, it cannot be accepted that he had not considered all the aspects of the matter including the question of existence of the construction or lack of construction on the land. It may further be mentioned that the Arbitrator on account of the prolonged experience and specialisation could consider the evidence led by the parties to arrive at just conclusion so far as the rate of rent is concerned. The award cannot be set aside merely on the ground that the Arbitrator has not specifically referred to any evidence led by either of the parties [See Bijendra Nath Srivastava Vs. Mayank Srivastava & Ors., ]. Even otherwise, once parties have selected their Forum, then the deciding Forum must be given the power of appraisement of the evidence. The Arbitrator is the Sole Judge of the quality as well as the quantity of the evidence and Court will not substitute its own judgment even if it arrived at a different conclusion (See MCD Vs. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar, ). Consequently, I feel that there is virtually no substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant in this regard.

5. In so far as the question of award being beyond the scope of the reference, is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Objector submits that the question of eviction was not referred to the Arbitrator. There is no dispute parties that following disputes were specifically mentioned in the judgment whereunder the matter was ordered to be referred Arbitrator:

     "1.  Dispute  relating to the period of the lease beginning  from      1st January, 1963. 
 

     2.   Dispute  relating  to  the quantum of rent  for  the  agreed  period up to the end of 20 years. 
 

     3.   Dispute relating to rate of rent, according to the petitioner, the rate is not more than Rs. 30,611.80 per year. 
 

     4.   The  question whether the petitioner can be  evicted  during  the period of 20 years. 
 

It was further mentioned that all the aforesaid matters arise from the agreement and had to be decided by an interpretation thereof. It appears that the question of period of lease beginning from 1st January, 1963 as well as whether the petitioner could be evicted during the period of 20 years were all the questions involved, and referred to the Arbitrator. This aspect was specifically considered while making the reference and it is now final. Now, since the award came after expiry of period of 20 years, the arbitrator was absolutely justified in holding that M/s. Oriental Building & Furnishing Co. Limited became liable to the evicted from the disputed premises w.e.f. 31st December, 1982 when the period of lease finally expired, the Objector was supposed to hand over the peaceful vacant possession to the claimants, Union of India (Railways)."

6. It is also apparent that when the Union of India proceeded to take steps under the Public Premises Act, the petitioner rushed to the Court to seek arbitration but now after the expiry of the period of 20 years and availing the entire period, they say that the matter was not referred. Consequently, it is apparent that the objectors are blowing hot and cold at different stages to suit the exigencies of time. I feel, therefore, that it is not permissible, and objectors are estopped from raising such a plea.

7. Since no other point has been argued, I feel that there is virtually no substance in the objections. The objections are accordingly dismissed. The award is made rule of the Court and the respondent will deliver possession and pay the interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the award till realisation after adjusting the amount which had already been paid/deposited in terms of the award.

8. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

9. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.