Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao, a body corporate under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, entered into a contract dated 12/10/1985 with respondent No.1, M/s. Pioneer Engineer Syndicate, a partnership firm, for construction of a transit shed superstructure for a multipurpose general cargo berth. Disputes arose between the parties, and the matter was referred to arbitration by respondents 2 and 3, who were appointed as arbitrators under the contract. The arbitrators passed an award dated 13/9/1990. The appellant filed Special Civil Suit No.72/91 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, seeking to set aside the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Civil Judge dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 26/3/1996, refusing to set aside the award. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal under the Arbitration Act. The main contention of the appellant was that the award was non-speaking and that the arbitrators failed to give reasons for their decision, which amounted to legal misconduct. The respondents argued that under the Arbitration Act, 1940, arbitrators are not required to give reasons unless the contract stipulates otherwise, and the award was not liable to be set aside. The High Court of Bombay at Goa, after hearing the parties, held that the arbitrators were not bound to give reasons for each item of claim and that the award did not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the Civil Judge.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Non-Speaking Award - Validity - Arbitration Act, 1940, Sections 30, 33 - The appellant challenged the arbitral award on the ground that it was non-speaking and that the arbitrators failed to give reasons for each item of claim. The court held that under the Arbitration Act, 1940, arbitrators are not bound to give reasons for their award unless the contract requires them to do so. The award was not liable to be set aside merely because it did not contain detailed reasons. (Paras 1-10) B) Arbitration Law - Setting Aside Award - Grounds - Arbitration Act, 1940, Section 30 - The court examined whether the award suffered from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. It held that the award was not vitiated by any legal misconduct or error, and the Civil Judge rightly refused to set it aside. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the arbitral award dated 13/9/1990 is liable to be set aside on the ground that it is a non-speaking award and that the arbitrators failed to give reasons for their decision.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge dated 26/3/1996, and refused to set aside the arbitral award dated 13/9/1990.
Law Points
- Arbitration award
- non-speaking award
- reasons for award
- setting aside award
- Arbitration Act 1940
- Section 30
- Section 33
- Major Port Trusts Act 1963
