- (1.) THIS is an appeal against a judgment and order dated 3rd January, 1974 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Judge refused to set aside an award on an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the appellant, Hindustan Steel Limited.
(2.) THE appellant made by the said application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the award on the ground, inter alia, as follows : (i) that there were errors on the face of the award and the arbitrator had found that there was no fixed period for delivery very under the contract and that the time was not of the essence of the contract. Such findings, according to the appellant, were erroneous as they were contrary to clause 5 of the Special terms and conditions of the sale order dated January 30, 1969 as such there was misconstruction of the terms of the Contract; (ii) the award was perverse and no reasonable person could make such an award; and (iii) one of the arbitrators Sri D. R. Mehata misconducted himself or misconducted the proceedings on the ground- (a) by receiving fees based on percentage of the amount of the award from the respondent which was unreasonable and improper and as such the award was procured improperly; (b) the said Sri D. R. Mehta influenced his co-arbitrator in making the award. By the said judgment and order dated 3rd January, 1974 the learned trial Judge of the court of the first instance rejected all allegations of misconduct levelled against one of the joint arbitrators Sri D. R. Mehta. The learned Judge also held that there was no misconstruction of the terms of the contract. It was further held by the learned trial judge that the award did not incorporate the contract in it and as such the alleged misconstruction, if any, was not apparent on the face of the award. It was also held by the learned trial Judge that in any event, a specific question of law viz. construction of the ters of an agreement was referred to the arbitrators for their decision and hence their decision even if erroneous was binding on the parties.
(3.) IN the present appeal the allegations of misconduct against one of the joint arbitrators was not seriously pressed on behalf of the appellant. In the instant appeal, it was argued with great emphasis that the learned joint arbitrators have misconstrued the terms of the contract and other relevant documents in coming to the finding that no delivery period was fixed under the contract and that the time was not of its essence. The learned Counsel for the appellant has taken us through various provisions of the contract and other documents to show that time was of the essence of the contract and that the entire quantity covered under the contract was to be despatched within 6 months from the date of the issue of the work order.;