, - (1.) THIS is an application for setting aside the award, dated 20-11-86 made and published by the Umpire.
(2.) THE parties entered into a contract, dated 12-1-82 and the work Order, dated 20-11-86 was issued by the petitioner for filling up and developing the land within the plant area of Kolaghat THErmal Power Project by the respondent. THEreafter a notification, dated 4-11-86 was issued by the State Government directing the petitioner No.1 to make over possession of Kolaghat THErmal Power Project Stages I and II with all its assets and liabilities as on 1-4-86 to the petitioner No.2 subject to the terms and conditions specified in the said notification, and the petitioner No.1 complied with the same. THE value of the work Order, dated 20-11-82 was Rs. 56,31,000. THE respondent executed the said work for some time. THEreafter dispute arose between the parties which were referred to two arbitrators in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the contract. THE arbitrators entered upon the reference after appointing an umpire. THE joint arbitrators subsequently differed in their opinion. THEreupon, the respondent, as the claimant, referred the matter to the umpire who declined to take up the matter. Under the circumstances, the respondent claimant took out an application for appointment of an umpire and, by consent of the parties, the present umpire was appointed by Order, dated 5-5-86. THE umpire made and published his award, dated 20-11-86 which is now under challenge. The grounds attacking the award have been set out in paragraph 63 of the petition. The counsel for the petitioners pressed grounds Nos. (II), (III), (IV) and (V) alleging that the umpire misconducted the proceeding by allowing the claimant to produce certain documents and to rely on the same which were admitted in evidence by the umpire in spite of objection by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the respondent-claimant was not entitled to rely on any other document save and except the measurement books, level books and site khatas produced by the petitioners before the umpire because the entries made therein were binding on the claimant. In the opinion of this Court, the umpire was well within his jurisdiction to allow the parties to produce all the relevant documents and papers for adjudication on the disputes referred to him. If the petitioners were truly aggrieved, they should have moved the Court for redress at that stage. But it is evident from the facts pleaded that the petitioners proceeded with the reference and made submissions on those documents which were admitted in evidence after hearing both the parties. It is not for this Court to go through the evidence to find out whether the umpire admitted those documents rightly or not. This Court cannot sit on appeal and re-hear the matter. The arbitrator or the umpire is the sole Judge of facts and laws and no appeal lies from his award. The present award is a non-speaking award and it does not disclose the basis on which the umpire has come to his decision. It is also clear from the petition that the umpire gave the petitioners full opportunity to make their submissions regarding the documents produced by the respondent. It is a settled law that the Evidence Act in terms does not apply to the arbitration proceeding and, in accepting documentary or oral evidence, the arbitrator or the umpire has to follow the principles of natural justice. The authorities in support- are A.I.R. 1944 -Cal. 127 (Chandrabhan Belotia v. Ganpatrai and son) and A.I.R. 1951 Cal. 230 (Haji Ebrahim Kassam Coohinwala v. Northern Old Industries Ltd.). Hence these grounds must fail.
(3.) IN the award, the umpire awarded Rs. 23,90,000 to the respondent in full and final settlement of its claims. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent had executed works upto the value of Rs. 28,56,412 and 7 running bills were prepared for that. The respondent had accepted payment under 6 bills keeping the 7th bill outstanding. IN that view of the matter, under no circumstances, Rs. 23,90,000 could be due to the respondent. On what consideration the umpire has arrived at this figure does not appear from the award. It is not possible for the Court to probe into the mind of the umpire. The Court can go into the merit of the case only when there is an error apparent on the face of the award disclosing that the award is based on a wrong proposition of law or there is an obvious mistake appearing on the face of the award. The Court has no jurisdiction to look into the documents tendered unless they are incorporated in the award or appended thereto. No roving inspection can be made by the Court.;