RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND Vs. CHOKHAMAL CONTRACTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common question which arises for consideration in these cases which are very neatly argued by learned counsel on both the sides is whether an award passed under the provisions of the ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is liable either to be remitted under S. 16(l)(c) of the Act or liable to be set aside under S. 30(c) thereof merely on the ground that no reasons have been given by the arbitrator or umpire, as the case may be, in support of the award.

(2.) ORDINARILY all disputes arising under a contract have to be settled by courts established by the State. S. 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that every agreement by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void to that extent. Exception 1 to the said S. 28, however, provides that the said S. shall not render illegal a contract by which two or more persons agree that any dispute which may arise between them in respect of any subject or class of subjects shall be referred to arbitration, and that only the amount awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the dispute so referred.

(3.) S. I of the English Arbitration Act, 1979, however, provides that if it appears to the -High court that an award does not or does not sufficiently set out the reasons for the award in sufficient detail to enable the court to consider any question of law arising out of it, the court has power to order the arbitrator or umpire to give reasons or further reasons.