- (1.) THIS is an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award dated 30th September, 1988 made and published by the Sole arbitrator Mr. Hiranmoy Dutta. This Award is a non-speaking Award.
(2.) THE petitioner has taken several ground challenging the said award. At the hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the grounds - (i) that the claim being the subject matter of arbitration is barred by the laws of limitation, and (ii) that the Arbitrator has allowed compensation in favour of the claimant, that is, the respondent, contrary to the provisions of the (contract entered into between the parties and in doing so the Arbitrator has ignored the rate prescribed by the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority. Regarding the first point taken by the Learned counsel for the petitioner, I find there is no substance in this contention. It is a well settled law that the question of a claim being barred by laws of limitation is a question to be decided by the Arbitrator and whether a claim is actually barred by laws of limitation or not that itself is a dispute to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator. It is also the settled law that the Arbitrator is to adjudicate both the questions of fact and law and the Court dealing with an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act for setting aside the Award is not to sit in appeal over the decision of the Arbitrator.
(3.) THE law as fully enunciated by several decisions of the Supreme court as also the High Courts is that an Award can only be set aside if there is an error of law appearing on the face of the Award or that the Arbitrator has mis-conducted the proceedings or mis-conducted himself in the adjudication of disputes between the parties.;