- (1.) THE petitioner by this application under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act has challenged an Award dated 30th August, 1990 passed by Sole Arbitrator on several grounds taken in the petition.
(2.) AT the hearing of this application, the Counsel for the petitioner has pressed two grounds as follows : v) For that the documents and/or papers produced before the learned arbitrator were not considered at all inasmuch as at least the same does not appear from the impugned award. In the instant case the said impugned award ex- facie does not appear that the learned Arbitrator did not mention that he has referred to or consider the document placed before him in respect of the claim of the respondent herein and on this ground alone: the impugned award of the learned arbitrator dated 30th August, 1990, suffers from non-application of mind thereby amounting to legal misconduct and thus liable to be set aside and/or quashed by this Hon'ble Court. VIII) For that the supplementary claim made by the claimant is also bad and that the Arbitrator cannot pass award upon the said supplementary claim on that ground that no leave was granted in course of herein, which is very much evident from the minutes of the Arbitration proceedings. The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents produced before the Arbitrator were not considered at all inasmuch as the same does not appear from the impugned award. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is imperative that the Arbitrator must mention in the 96 CWN Coal India Ltd. vs. Associated Coal Agency 1231, award that he considered alt the documents, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that though the Arbitrator is not bound to disclose as to what interpretation he has made ;and what inference he had derived from the documentary evidence, he is bound to mention in the award that he had considered all the documents placed before him. The leaned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award ex -facie does not mention that he referred to or considered the documents aced before him in respect of the claim of the respondent herein. Therefore, the impugned award dated 30th august, 1991, as contended cm behalf of the petitioner, suffers from non-application of mind amounting to legal misconduct and thus the impugned award is liable to be set aside or quashed.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforesaid contention has placed heavy reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in a case of Dandasi Sahu vs. State of Orissa reported in AIR 1990 SC l 128 where the Supreme court has observe, inter alia, that though the arbitrator is not bound to disclose as to what interpretation he has made and what inference he has derived from the documentary evidence, he is bound to refer in the award that he had considered all the documents placed before him no matter whether he relies on them or discards them from consideration.;