- (1.) THIS appeal is against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division Margao in Special Civil Suit (Arbitration) No.63/94/A and Civil Misc. Application No.50/94/A dated 16.1.1995, whereby the objections filed by the appellant to the Award made by the learned Arbitrator dated 27.1.1994 were dismissed and the Award was made rule of the Court. The said order is impugned, inter alia , on the grounds that the findings are perverse as the learned Civil Judge has failed to take into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raipur Development Authority etc., v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors etc., reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1426 , wherein the Constitution Bench has dealt with whether reasons are required to be given, that the learned Judge has rejected the counter claim of the appellant thereby failing to exercise jurisdiction, that the learned Civil Judge, has failed to appreciate the evidence and that the findings given by the arbitrator, are perverse and without due application of mind.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts leading to the appeal are as follows : The respondent was awarded work of providing and laying and jointing A.C. Pressure Pipe Distribution Network at Chicalim by work order dated 26/4/1983. Certain disputes and differences arose between the parties and Arbitration Suit No.53/89/B was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division at Margao . Shri . J. S. Pinto, Retired Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. was appointed as arbitrator by the Court. The Arbitrator made his Award dated 27.1.1994, whereby the appellants were directed to pay to the respondents a sum of Rs.2,88,882/ only. The said award was challenged by the appellants by filing objections dated 29.3.1994, which were registered as Civil Misc. Appln . NO.50/1994/A in Special Civil Suit No.63/94/A before the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Margao . By impugned order dated 16.1.1995, the learned trial Judge, dismissed the said objections and confirmed the Award. The appeal is from the said order dated 16.1.1995, challenging the order rejecting the objections to the Award. When the appeal came up for hearing, this Court found that there was prima facie substance in only one of the objections raised i.e. no specific reasons were given by the arbitrator to explain the quantification of the amounts of money awarded to the respondent under various claims. The award was, therefore, remitted to the Arbitrator by oral Order dated 28.11.1997 directing him to give his findings with regard to the figures awarded by him and to submit his additional report in that connection. The Arbitrator thereafter filed his supplementary Award/Additional Award dated 10.2.1998 in this appeal and the appellant thereafter filed additional objections to the supplementary award dated 10.2.1999 which objections have been registered under Misc. Civil Application No.109/99.
(3.) IT is contended by learned Advocate for the appellant that the grounds impugning the order of the lower Court and consequently, the award of the learned Arbitrator are within the scope of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It is contended that the grounds made out are within the parameters of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raipur Development Authority, etc. v/s. M/s. Chakhamol Contractors, etc., (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the question whether reasons are required to be given, as follows : "The Arbitrator or Umpire is under no obligation to give reasons in support of the decision reached by him unless the arbitration agreement or in the deed of submission is required to give such reasons and if the Arbitrator or Umpire chooses to give reasons in support of his decision, it is open to the Court to set aside the award if it finds that an error of law has been committed by the Arbitrator or Umpire on the basis of record on going through such reasons". It is pointed out that in the instant case, Clause 25 of the Arbitration Clause specifically provides that the arbitrator shall give reasons for the award and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the learned Arbitrator to give reasons. It is submitted that the arbitrator while making the award, committed error on the face of the award and the record and has given no reason for granting the claims nor have the delays been quantified and that there are also illegalities committed by the Arbitrator.;