SUDARSAN TRADING CO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) THESE appeals arise from the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala, dated 5/05/1988. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order in M.F.A. Nos. 72, 346 and 380 of 1983 allowed the appeals of the respondent the Govt. of Kerala, against the judgment and decree dated 25/09/1982 passed by the principal Sub-Judge, Trivandrum, in C.P. (Arbitration) Cases Nos. 184,185 and 186 of 1982 by which the learned Sub-Judge had upheld the awards by the arbitrator on the ground that it was not open to the court to sit in appeal over the decision of the arbitrator and the court could not adjudicate upon the justification for the conclusions arrived at by the arbitrator unless such awards were the result of corruption, fraud or when there were errors apparent on the face of the award. The learned Sub-judge further held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and there was no allegation of corruption or fraud. The High Court reversed the said decision.

(3.) IT may be noted that on 23/12/1976 the agreement No. 25/SESPC/1976-77 was entered into between the appellant and the respondent herein for construction of masonry dam across Siruvani river. Certain disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent. These disputes were referred to the arbitrator named in the agreement. The arbitrator passed the awards dated 12th, 15th and 23/04/1982 which were filed before the sub-judge and the appellant prayed for passing of decree in terms of the awards. The respondents filed petitions seeking to set aside the awards. The learned Judge refused to set aside the awards and passed decrees in terms of the awards. The Trial Court held that there was no merit in the contention regarding limitation; and that the claims under the award were not barred by limitation. IT was further held by the learned Trial Judge that the arbitrator had not incorporated in the award any material for his conclusion nor had he incorporated the terms of contract between the parties. Under such circumstances the award could not beset aside, especially when there was no error apparent on the face and that there was nothing to show that the arbitrator had mis-conducted the proceedings or that the award had been improperly procured. So the objection to the passing of the award was turned down.