AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jagannanda Rao, J.—But, as the law stands today, the award will be bad only if the award is bad on its face on account of an error of law or if such mistake is disclosed by some contemporaneous writing or documents, accompanying and forming part of the award. Thus if there are pleadings and the arbitrator so refers to them as to incorporate them into the award, they may be looked at. So, in an arbitration arising out of a contract, may be, any term in the contract be specifically referred in the award. The principle is that the court will not look at anything to induce it to review the decision of an arbitrator on any matter submitted to him for his decision, except it be something appearing on the face of the award or on a document forming part of the award. In AIR 1923 66 (Privy Council) the award recited that the contracts "were made subject to the Rules and regulations of the Bombay Cotton Trade Association" and still it was held that this recital did not justify the Court in looking at these regulations for the purpose of seeing whether the arbitrators could have interpreted them correctly.
But, in the context of the law relating to quasi judicial adjudication, the position of non-speaking awards appears to be for from satisfactory. It is true that changes introduced by the Arbitration Act, 1979 in England have yet to be brought into our Act. In Orissa, Section 41-A has been introduced by a local amendment, so that all arbitration "to which the State Government is a party" will be referred to an Arbitration Tribunal of three members, the Chairman to be a Judge and the members to be an Engineer and a Finance Officer. Such tribunals will undoubtedly inspire more confidence
A Division in Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj Dept. v. B. Balaioh (1985) 1 APLJ 224 pointed out the desirability of arbitrators giving reasons in their awards in cases where the government is a party. The Bench said that the law should be altered in such a manner that at least in case where the interests of the State are involved, reasons must be given. Whenever interests of State of Public Corporations or Companies or Government undertakings are involved, it is desirable that arbitrators give reasons. The law should make it obligatory for arbitrators to give detailed reasons.