http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5647-48 of 1997

PETITIONER: Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.                          

RESPONDENT: Vs. M/s Annapurna Construction                               

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/08/2003

BENCH: CJI. & S.B. Sinha.  

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

S.B. SINHA, J :

       These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated  29.4.1997 passed by the High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in  Appeal from Original Order No.169 of 1995 (R) whereby and whereunder  the appeal preferred by the appellant herein from a judgment and order  dated 3.6.1995 passed by the Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Dhanbad in  Title (Arbitration) Suit No.109 of 1994 was dismissed.

FACTS:

       The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.  The parties  hereto entered into a contract for construction of 140 numbers of  temporary hutments, the estimated cost of which was  Rs.49,45,447.81.   A formal work order was issued to  the respondent herein.  Entire work  in terms of the agreement was to be completed within a period of four  months.   

A formal contract was entered into for the aforementioned work by  and between the parties.  The said contract contained an arbitration  agreement.  The said contractual job was not allegedly completed by the  respondent within the stipulated period wherefor a request was made for  extension of time till 31.12.1986 to complete the work.  Further  extensions of time were sought for and granted from time to time.  

Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, the  arbitration agreement was invoked.  The Chief Engineer of the  appellant-Company was appointed as the sole arbitrator.  He was to give  a reasoned award.  Before the arbitrator the respondent raised a claim  of Rs.55,01,640.66.  The appellant herein also raised a counter claim  for a sum of Rs.28,47,860.57.  By reason of an award dated 13.7.1994,  the sole arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.18,97,729.37 with interest @  18% per annum in favour of the respondent.  The counter claim of the  appellant, however, was rejected.  

The said award was filed before the learned Subordinate Judge,  Dhanbad for being made a rule of court in terms of Section 14 of the  Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short  ’the Act’).  The appellant herein in  the said proceedings filed an objection under Sections 15, 16, 30 and  33 of the Act.  The learned trial Judge by reason of a judgment dated  3.6.1995 rejected the said objection of the appellant and made the  award as rule of court, where-against an appeal was preferred which by  reason of the impugned judgment was dismissed.  

However, it may be noticed at this stage that the learned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

Subordinate Judge did not grant any interest from the date of decree in  favour of the respondent wherefor an application purported to be under  Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed.  The said  application was rejected on 12.12.1995 where-against the respondent  preferred a civil revision application before the High Court.  Both the  appeal being M.A. No.169 of 1995 (R) filed by the appellant herein and  Civil Revision being C.R. No.12 of 1996 (R) filed by the respondent  herein were heard together.  While disposing the appeal, the revison  petition was allowed by the High Court by reason of the impugned  judgment.  

SUBMISSIONS:

       Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant, inter alia, submitted that the respondent having accepted  the final bill, a further claim by it was inadmissible. The learned  counsel pointed out that as a special case the appellant granted 95%  advance wherefor no interest was to be charged.  The said advance was  to be adjusted from the running bills.  In that view of the matter, the  learned counsel would contend that the arbitrator committed an  illegality in entertaining Claim Item Nos. 3 and 7.  The learned  counsel would urge that the respondent having been granted extension,  it was obligatory on the part of the learned arbitrator to consider as  to whether the respondent was entitled to any compensation for the  alleged loss occurred on the ground of delay in completion of work,  particularly when it was agreed that the extension of time was granted  subject to payment of penalty.  The learned counsel would further  submit that in terms of the contract the appellant had been supplied  with all the essential raw materials, namely, cement, steel etc. which  would cover about 95% of the total cost to be incurred for the  construction of the hutments and in that view of the matter the  respondent could not be held to be entitled to any amount by way of  escalation in the price.

Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondent, per contra would submit that the objections filed by the  appellant herein have been thoroughly considered by the learned  Subordinate Judge and  the High Court and as such it is not a fit case  wherein this Court should interfere.  The learned counsel would urge  that it is not the case of the appellant that the learned sole  arbitrator did not pass a reasoned award and, thus, this court in  exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Act would not  interfere when two views are possible. The learned counsel would submit  that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Act, the  court does not reappraise evidences brought on record.  Strong  reliance, in this connection, has been placed on Ispat Engineering &  Foundry Works, B.S. City, Bokaro vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.,  B.S. City, Bokaro [(2001) 6 SCC 347].   

FINDINGS:

       Only because the respondent has accepted the final bill, the same  would not mean that it was not entitled to raise any claim.  It is not  the case of the appellant  that while accepting the final bill, the  respondent had unequivocally stated that he would not raise any further  claim.  In absence of such a declaration, the respondent cannot be held  to be estopped or precluded from raising  any claim.  We, therefore, do  not find any merit in the said submission of Mr. Sinha.   

The submission of Mr. Sinha to the effect that the High Court  committed an error in granting interest from the date of the decree  purported  to be in terms of Section 29 of the Arbitration Act appears  to be correct.  The learned Subordinate Judge did not grant any  interest in terms of Section 29 of the Act.  The same was not by way of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

a clerical or arithmetical mistake which could be corrected by the  court in exercise of its power under Section 152 of the Code of Civil  Procedure.  The remedy of the respondent, therefore, was either to  prefer an appeal thereagaint or file a review petition.  As the court  could not have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 152 of the Code  of Civil Procedure, the High Court in exercise of its revisional  jurisdiction could not have interfered therewith.

So far as the question of late payment of the bills is concerned,  the arbitrator has arrived at a finding of fact that there had been an  inordinate delay in respect of 10th R/A bill for Rs.4,85,403.31 which  was paid after a lapse of one year from the date of completion of work  on 15.1.1988 and a sum of Rs.54,737.53 was awarded as damages @ 12% on  the said amount for the period of 343 days to the appellant.

       So far as Claim Item No.3 is concerned, the question which arose  for consideration before the arbitrator was as to whether any extra  work had been done or not.  The case of the appellant was that the  respondent had not done any extra work.  The arbitrator had considered  the materials on record  for the purpose of arriving at a finding of  fact that certain extra work had been done by the respondent wherefor  only a sum of Rs.84,942.02 was awarded in place and instead of  Rs.1,58,862.26.   

       However, Mr. Sinha is correct in his submission that the learned  arbitrator has not taken into consideration the effect  and  purport of  the following clause in the contract:

"Provided always that :

(a)     Contractor/Contractors shall not be entitled to  any payment for any additional work done unless  he/they have received an order in writing from  the Superintending Engineer/Sr. Executive  Engineer/Executive Engineer for such additional  work;

(b)     The contractor/contractors shall be bound to  submit his/their claim for any such additional  work done during any month on or before the 15th  day of the following month accompanied by the  additional work; and

(c)     The contractor/contractors shall not be  entitled to any payment in respect of such  additional work if he/they fail to submit  his/their claim within the aforesaid period."

       The question is as to whether the claim of the contractor is de  hors the rules or not was a matter which fell for consideration before  the arbitrator.  He was bound to consider the same.  The jurisdiction  of the arbitrator in such a matter must be held to be confined to the  four-corners of the contract.  He could not have ignored an important  clause in the agreement; although it may be open to the arbitrator to  arrive at a finding on the materials on records that the claimant’s  claim for additional work was otherwise justified.             Claim Item No.4 was rejected.   

The award in respect of Claim Item No.5 is not in question.   Claim Item No.6 was in relation to penalty amount of Rs.10,000/- which  was deducted by way of penalty and was not found to be justifiable, and  as such the appellant was directed to refund the said amount.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

        We are furthermore concerned with Claim Item Nos.7 and 11 which  are under the headings of  ’Losses due to prolongation of work’ and  ’Material Escalation’.  It is not in dispute that a secured advance of  95% of the cost of materials was given in terms of the contract which  is to the following effect :

"Secured Advance will be paid @ 95% of the cost  of materials as a special case to get the work  completed within 4(four) months as per latest  price list of BCCL (copy enclosed), subject to  submissions of Indemnity Bond on non-Judicial  stamp paper of required value in the approved  proforma of BCCL and also Insurance against  fire, theft and damages etc.  The secured  advance will be paid only on the items on which  it was payable in BCCL.  The secured advance  thus paid, will be recovered in five equal  instalments from the subsequent running account  bills or on the consumption of materials  whichever is earlier."

       The appellant does not dispute the same.  It is also not in  dispute that the appellant has not charged any interest in respect of  the said advance.  It is further not in dispute that cement @ Rs.51/-  per bag, mild steel rounds @ Rs.5460/- per metric tonne and tor steel @  Rs.5810/-per metric tonne were supplied by the appellant.  However, the  claim relating to material escalation was confined to six articles  which were allegedly not supplied by the appellant, namely, bricks, AC  sheets, angles, doors, frames and shutters etc.   

So far as these items are concerned, in our opinion, the learned  sole arbitrator should have taken into consideration the relevant  provisions contained in the agreement as also the correspondences  passed between the parties.  The question as to whether the work could  not be completed within the period of four months or the extension was  sought for on one condition or the other was justifiable or not, which  are relevant facts which were required to be taken into consideration  by the arbitrator.

       It is now well settled that the Arbitrator cannot act  arbitrarily, irrationally, capriciously or independent of the contract.         In Associated Engineering vs. Govt. of A.P.  [(1991) 4 SCC 93],  this Court clearly held that the arbitrators cannot travel beyond the  parameters of the contract. In M/s. Sudarsan Trading Co. v. The Govt.  of Kerala [(1989) 2 SCC 38], this Court has observed that an award may  be remitted or set aside on the ground that the arbitrator in making it  had exceeded his jurisdiction and evidence of matters not appearing on  the face of it, will be admitted in order to establish whether the  jurisdiction had been exceeded or not, because the nature of the  dispute is something which has been determined outside the award,  whatever might be said about it in the award by the Arbitrator. This  Court further observed that an arbitrator acting beyond his  jurisdiction is a different ground from the error apparent on the face  of the award.          There lies a clear distinction between an error within the  jurisdiction and error in excess of jurisdiction. Thus, the role of the  arbitrator is to arbitrate within the terms of the contract. He has no  power apart from what the parties have given him under the contract. If  he has travelled beyond the contract, he would be acting without  jurisdiction, whereas if he has remained inside the parameter of the  contract, his award cannot be questioned on the ground that it contains  an error apparent on the face of the records.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

       In paragraph 577 of Halsbury’s laws of England 4th Edition Vol 2,  the law has been stated in the following terms: "As an arbitrator (and subsequently any umpire)  obtains his jurisdiction solely from the  agreement for his appointment it is never open  to him to reject any part of that agreement, or  to disregard any limitations placed on his  authority, as, for example, a limitation on his  right to appoint an umpire. Nor can he confer  jurisdiction upon himself by deciding in his  own favour some preliminary point upon which  his jurisdiction depends. Nevertheless he is  entitled to consider the question whether or  not he has jurisdiction to act in order to  satisfy himself that it is worth while to  proceed, and an award which expressly or  impliedly refers to such a finding is not  thereby invalidated."  In ’Commercial Arbitration’ by Mustill and Boyd at page 598 it is  stated : "in the first place, it could be argued that an  arbitrator who is appointed in respect of a  dispute arising under a contract expressly or  impliedly governed by English law is authorised  by the parties to pronounce upon the issues in  accordance with that law, and in no other way.  Any decision which proceeds, on a different  basis lies outside the scope of the  arbitrator’s mandate to bind the parties. The  award is accordingly void for want of  jurisdiction, since the arbitrator has done  something which the parties never authorised  him to do. Secondly, it would be possible to  draw support from a line of authority  culminating in three important decisions during  the past decade which approach the question  whether a tribunal can effectively decide  contrary to law by using the word ’jursdiction’  in the first of the three senses indicated  above. Whilst a reconciliation of this decision  is a matter for a treatise on administrative  law, there is no doubt that in relation to  certain kinds of tribunal the law has  recognised a distinction between errors of law  which go to jurisdiction and those which do  not, and that there is a difference between  tribunal which has arrived at a decision by  asking itself the wrong question, and one which  has correctly identified the question, but has  supplied the wrong answer in terms of law.  Following up this line of authority, it could  be said that an arbitrator empowered to decide  the rights of the parties under a contract  governed by English law, who asks himself not  what England law has to say about those right,  but what the rights ought to be if assessed in  accordance with his own ideas of an extra-legal  concept of justice, is either asking himself  the wrong question, or not really asking a  question at all."

       In Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India [(1960) 2 SCR  793], this Court clearly held that if damages are awarded ignoring the  expressed terms of the contract, the arbitrator would commit misconduct

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

of the proceedings. Reference in this connection may also be made to  Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Khyaliram Jagannath [(1968) 1 SCR 821].         In Heyman v. Darwin [1942 (1) All ER 327], it was held that  arbitrator as a rule cannot clothe himself with the jurisdiction when  it has none.         In paragraph 622 at pages 330-331 Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th  Edn) Vol2 it has been stated but misconduct occurs, for example; (1) If the arbitrator or umpire fails to decide  all the matters which were referred to him.  (2) If by his award the arbitrator or umpire  purports to decide matters which have not in  fact been included in the agreement of  reference, for example, where the arbitrator  construed the lease (wrongly), instead of  determining the rental and the value of  buildings to be maintained on the land; or  where the award contains unauthorised  directions to the parties, or where the  arbitrator, has power to direct what shall be  done but his directions affect the interest of  third persons; or where he decided to the  parties rights, not under the contract upon  which the arbitration had proceeded but under  another contract; (3) If the award is inconsistent, or is  uncertain or ambiguous, or even if there is  some mistake of fact, although in that case the  mistake must be either admitted or at least  clear beyond any reasonable doubt;"                  In Associated Engineering (supra), it has been held: "If the arbitrator commits an error in the  construction of the contract, that is an error  within his jurisdiction. But if he wanders  outside the contract and deals with matters not  allotted to him, he commits a jurisdiction  error. Such error going to his jurisdiction can  be established by looking into material outside  the award. Extrinsic evidence is admissible in  such cases because the dispute is not something  which arises under or in relation to the  contract or dependent on the construction of  the contract or to be determined within the  award. The dispute as to jurisdiction is a  matter which is outside the award or outside  whatever may be said about it in the award. The  ambiguity of the award can, in such cases, be  resolved by admitting extrinsic evidence. The  rationale of this rule is that the nature of  the dispute is something which has to be  determined outside and independent of what  appears in the award. Such jurisdictional error  needs to be proved by evidence extrinsic to the  award. In the instant case, the umpire decided matters  strikingly outside his jurisdiction. He  outstepped the confines of the contract. He  wandered far outside the designated area. He  digressed far away from the allotted task. His  error arose not by misreading or misconstruing  or misunderstanding the contract, but by acting  in excess of what was agreed. It was an error  going to the root of his jurisdiction because  he asked himself the wrong question,  disregarded the contract and awarded in excess

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

of his authority. In many respects, the award  flew in the face of provisions of the contract  to the contrary. The umpire, in our view, acted unreasonably,  irrationally and capriciously in ignoring the  limits and the clear provisions of the  contract. In awarding claims which are totally  opposed to the provisions of the contract to  which he made specific reference in allowing  them, he has misdirected and misconducted  himself by manifestly disregarding the limits  of his jurisdiction and the bounds of the  contract from which he derived his authority  thereby acting ultra fines compromissi."

       In State of Orissa v. Dandasi Sahu [1988 (4) SCC 12], this Court  observed: "In our opinion, the evidence of such state of  affairs should make this Court scrutinise the  award carefully in each particular case but  that does not make the court declare that all  high amounts of award would be bad per se."

       In K.P. Poulose v. State of Kerala  [(1975) 2 SCC 236], this  Court observed that the case of legal misconduct would be complete if  the arbitrator on the face of the award arrives at an inconsistent  conclusion even on his own finding or arrives at a decision by ignoring  the very material documents which throw abundant light on the  controversy to help a just and fair decision.

       In K.V. George v. The Secretary to Government, Water and Power  Dept, Tri-vendrum  [1989 (4) SCC 595], this Court held :- "In the instant case, the contract was  terminated by the respondents on April 26,  1980, and as such all the issues arose out of  the termination of the contract and they could  have been raised in the first claim petition  filed before the Arbitrator by the Appellant.  This having not been done the second claim  petition before the Arbitrator raising the  remaining disputes is clearly barred. With  regard to the submission as to the  applicability of the principles of res judicata  as provided in Section 11 of the Code of Civil  Procedure to arbitration case, it is to be  noted that Section 41 of the Arbitration Act  provides that the provisions of the Code of  Civil Procedure will apply to the Arbitration  proceedings. The provisions of res judicata are  based on the principles that there shall be no  multiplicity of proceedings and there shall be  finality of proceedings. This is applicable to  the arbitration proceedings as well."

       This Court referred to the decision in Satish Kumar v. Surinder  Kumar [AIR 1970 SC 833] and held: "The true legal position in regard to the  effect of an award is not in dispute. It is  well settled that as a general rule, all claims  which are the subject-matter of a reference to  arbitration merge in the award which is  pronounced in the proceedings before the  arbitrator and that after an award has been  pronounced, the rights and liabilities of the  parties in respect of the said claims can be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

determined only on the basis of the said award.  After an award is pronounced, no action can be  started on the original claim which had been  the subject-matter of the reference....... This  conclusion, according to the learned Judge, is  based upon the elementary principle that, as  between the parties and their privies, an award  is entitled to that respect which is due to  judgment of a court of last resort. Therefore,  if the award which has been pronounced-between  the parties has in fact, or can in law, be  deemed to have dealt with the present dispute,  the second reference would be incompetent. This  position also has not been and cannot be  seriously disputed."

In Union of India vs. Jain Associates and Another [(1994) 4 SCC  665], this Court upon following K.P. Poulose (supra) and Dandasi Sahu  (supra) held :

"8. The question, therefore, is whether the  umpire had committed misconduct in making the award.  It is seen that claims 11 and 12 for damages and loss  of profit are founded on the breach of contract and  Section 73 encompasses both the claims as damages.  The umpire, it is held by the High Court, awarded  mechanically, different amounts on each claim. He  also totally failed to consider the counter-claim on  the specious plea that it is belated counter- statement. These facts would show, not only the state  of mind of the umpire but also non-application of the  mind, as is demonstrable from the above facts. It  would also show that he did not act in a judicious  manner objectively and dispassionately which would go  to the root of the competence of the arbitrator to  decide the disputes."

       In Sikkim Subba Associates Vs. State of Sikkim [(2001) 5 SCC  629], this Court held:

"It would be difficult for the courts to either  exhaustively define the word "misconduct" or  likewise enumerate the line of cases in which  alone interference either could or could not be  made. Courts of law have a duty and obligation  in order to maintain purity of standards and  preserve full faith and credit as well as to  inspire confidence in alternate dispute  redressal method of arbitration, when on the  face of the award it is shown to be based upon  a proposition of law which is unsound or  findings recorded which are absurd or so  unreasonable and irrational that no reasonable  or right-thinking person or authority could  have reasonably come to such a conclusion on  the basis of the materials on record or the  governing position of law to interfere."

       In Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Sterilite Industries  (India) and Another [(2001) 8 SCC 482], it was observed:

"In the light of this enunciation of law, we

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

are of the view that unless the error of law  sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel  for the petitioners in the instant case is  patent on the face of the award, neither the  High Court nor this Court can interfere with  the award. The exercise to be done by examining  clause 14(ii) of the contract entered into  between the parties, construing the same  properly and thereafter applying the law to it  to come to a conclusion one way or the other,  is too involved a process and it cannot be  stated that such an error is apparent or patent  on the face of the award. Whether under the  context of the terms and conditions of a  contract, a stipulation in the form and nature  of clause 14(ii) operates as a special  provision to the exclusion of Section 73 of the  Indian Contract Act is a matter of appreciation  of facts in a case, and when the decision  thereon is not patently absurd or wholly  unreasonable, there is no scope for  interference by courts dealing with a challenge  to the award."

       In W.B. State Warehousing Corporation and Another Vs. Sushil  Kumar Kayan and Others [(2002) 5 SCC 679], this Court opined:

"In order to determine whether the arbitrator  has acted in excess of his jurisdiction what  has to be seen is whether the claimant can  raise a particular claim before the arbitrator.  If there is a specific term in the contract or  the law which does not permit the parties to  raise a point before the arbitrator and if  there is a specific bar in the contract to the  raising of the point, then the award passed by  the arbitrator in respect thereof would be in  excess of his jurisdiction."

       The High Court was, therefore, required to consider, the  objections filed by the Appellant herein from the aforementioned points  of view.         

       Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. L.K. Ahuja & Co. [(2001) 4 SCC 86],  whereupon Mr. Sinha has placed strong reliance cannot be held to be  applicable in this case as therein the court was concerned with hybrid  award.  The court was not in a position to ascertain as to whether  escalation charges had been made against the materials supplied by the  principal or also other materials.

       It is no doubt true that the jurisdiction of this Court while  considering the validity of an award is limited as has been stated by  this Court in Ispat Engineering & Foundry Works (supra):

"4. Needless to record that there exists a long  catena of cases through which the law seems to  be rather well settled that the reappraisal of  evidence by the court is not permissible. This  Court in one of its latest decisions (Arosan  Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India ((1999) 9  SCC 449)) upon consideration of decisions in  Champsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spg. &

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

Wvg. Co. Ltd. (AIR 1923 PC 66 : 1923 AC 480),  Union of India v. Bungo Steel Furniture (P)  Ltd. (AIR 1967 SC 1032 : (1967) 1 SCR 324), N.  Chellappan v. Secy., Kerala SEB ((1975) 1 SCC  289), Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Govt. of Kerala  ((1989) 2 SCC 38), State of Rajasthan v. Puri  Construction Co. Ltd. ((1994) 6 SCC 485) as  also in Olympus Superstructures (P) Ltd. v.  Meena Vijay Khetan ((1999) 5 SCC 651) has  stated that reappraisal of evidence by the  court is not permissible and as a matter of  fact, exercise of power to reappraise the  evidence is unknown to a proceeding under  Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. This Court  in Arosan Enterprises ((1999) 9 SCC 449)  categorically stated that in the event of there  being no reason in the award, question of  interference of the court would not arise at  all. In the event, however, there are reasons,  interference would still be not available  unless of course, there exist a total  perversity in the award or the judgment is  based on a wrong proposition of law. This Court  went on to record that in the event, however,  two views are possible on a question of law,  the court would not be justified in interfering  with the award of the arbitrator if the view  taken recourse to is a possible view. The  observations of Lord Dunedin in Champsey Bhara  (AIR 1923 PC 66 : 1923 AC 480) stand accepted  and adopted by this Court in Bungo Steel  Furniture (AIR 1967 SC 1032 : (1967) 1 SCR 324)  to the effect that the court had no  jurisdiction to investigate into the merits of  the case or to examine the documentary and oral  evidence in the record for the purposes of  finding out whether or not the arbitrator has  committed an error of law. The court as a  matter of fact, cannot substitute its own  evaluation and come to the conclusion that the  arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain  between the parties."  

However, as noticed hereinbefore, this case stands on a different  footing, namely, that the arbitrator while passing the award in  relation to some items failed and/or neglected to take into  consideration the relevant clauses of the contract, nor did he take  into consideration the relevant materials for the purpose  of arriving  at a correct fact.  Such an order would amount to misdirection in law.

                        We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter requires  reconsideration.  Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this  case and particularly keeping in view the fact that the matter relates  to pure interpretation of document which gives rise to question of law  and instead and in place of remitting the matter to the named  arbitrator, we would direct that the disputes in relation to Claim item  Nos.3, 7 and 11 be referred to Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.N. Prasad, a  retired Judge of the Jharkhand High Court on such terms and conditions  as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties.  The learned arbitrator  is requested to consider the desirability of making his award as  expeditiously as possible keeping in view the fact that the matter has  been pending for a long time.

       These appeals are allowed to the aforementioned extent.  No

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

costs.