Banerjee, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appeal pertains to the issue of interference of Court under Sections 30 and 33 of the repealed Arbitration Act, 1940. Undisputably, in the contextual facts, the award in question is a non-speaking award of a former Judge of the High Court, at Patna who acted as an Umpire on appointment by the Court. The award was made a rule of Court by a judgment dated 20-4-1995 rejecting the petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act of 1940. The High Court in appeal however set aside the award recording therein, that the award is otherwise invalid in terms of clause (a) of Section 30 of the Act of 1940 and hence the petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.
(3.) Section 30 of the Act of 1940 was rather restrictive in its operation and the use of the expression "shall" in the main body of the Section made it mandatory to the Court that the award of an Arbitrator shall not be set aside excepting for the reasons as mentioned therein namely : (a) Arbitrator or Umpire has misconducted himself. (b) The award has been made or passed after the supersession of the Arbitration or the proceedings becoming invalid. (c) Award has been improperly procured or otherwise invalid. These three specific provisions thus can only be taken recourse to in the matter of setting aside of award and the law is so well settled on this score that we also do not feel it expedient to dilate on the issue excepting recording that since the parties chose their own arbitrators to adjudicate the disputes between them, the parties cannot object to such an adjudication or decision either upon the law or on the facts except however as envisaged in terms of section 30 of the Act of 1940, since repealed and as noticed above.;