Sabyasachi Mukharji , J. - (1.) Special leave granted and the appeals are disposed of by the judgment herein.
(2.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay confirming the decision of the learned single Judge dismissing the application for setting aside the award. It appears that there was a Charter Party Agreement entered into between the parties in December, 1981 signed by the representative of the President of India and the respondent, shipping Company for transportation of bulk cargo from Australia to India. Thereafter in February, 1982 the agreement was sent to the President's representative at New Delhi for signing the same. The said cargo was delivered at the port of Tuticorin and not at Calcutta. The respondent company raised disputes regarding several items and claimed an amount of Rs. 9,06,854.86 as demurrage and Rs. 7881.43 against overtime charges. As per the said agreement, the disputes were referable to arbitration by joint arbitration of two Arbitrators one each to be appointed by each of the parties. The appellant appointed one Shri J. L. Puri as its arbitrator with a specific condition that he shall give reasons for the award. The respondent company appointed one Shri P. S. Gokhale as its arbitrator. Thereafter award was made and the same was signed by Shri Gokhale at Bombay on 11th June, 1986 and Shri J. L. Puri at Calcutta on 18th of June, 1986.
(3.) The Award did not speak. As such there is no reason apparent from the award. The award, however, directed the appellant Corporation to pay lump sum amount of Rs. 6,22,589/- to the respondent company. the award was filed in the High Court of Bombay. Notice of such filing was received by the appellant Corporation at Delhi. The appellants filed objection petition before the High Court of Bombay for setting aside the award. It was contended that the High Court of Bombay had no jurisdiction to entertain the filing of the award since no cause of action arose at Bombay. The appellants contended that the award was liable to be set aside for reasons of misconduct, irregularity and lack of competence.;