Appeal No.457 of 2002,Notice of Motion No.1466 of 2002,Arbitration Petition No.124 of 1994,Award No.67 of 1994

24th November, 2010

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. S. U. KAMDAR,Mr. D. MEHTA, Mr. SNEHAL SHAH , Smt. POOJA PATIL,M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co.
Respondent Counsel: Mr. K. SETALVAD,Mr. R. D. DHANUKA, Mr. H. C. PIMPLE , Mr. SIRSIKAR

Cases Cited:
Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Raymon and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 90 [Para 9]
Kundale & Associates Vs. Konkan Hotels (P) Ltd., (1999)3 SCC 533 [Para 9.1]
State of Orissa Vs. Asis Ranjan Mohanty, (1999)9 SCC 249 [Para 9.2,11]
Paradip Port Trust Vs. Unique Builders, (2001)2 SCC 680 [Para 9.3]
Mcdermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006)11 SCC 181 [Para 9.4,11]
Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s. Prannath Vishwanath Rawley, AIR 1977 SC 2014 [Para 10,11]
Union of India Vs. G. S. Atwal & Co., (1996)3 SCC 568 [Para 10.1]
Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, through the Municipal Commissioner, 1999(1) Bom.C.R. 112 [Para 12]
Aboobaker Latif Vs. Reception Committee of the 48th Indian National Congress, AIR 1937 Bom. 410 [Para 13]
Vinayak Vishnu Sahasrabudhe Vs. B. G. Gadre, AIR 1959 Bom. 39 [Para 13]
Wazir Chand Karan Chand Vs. Union of India, AIR 1989 Delhi 175 [Para 13,A,15]
Banwari Lal Vs. Jagannath Prasad, AIR 1958 All 717 [Para 13,A]
M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen, AIR 1972 SC 330 [Para 14]
Ramchandra Reddy & Co. Vs. State of A.P., (2001)4 SCC 241 [Para 16]
Sangamner Bhag Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Krupp Industries Ltd., (2002)5 SCC 417 [Para 17]

JUDGMENT

P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th February, 2002 passed by the learned single Judge in Arbitration Petition No.124 of 1994 by which the learned single Judge remitted the matter to the Arbitrator for de novo consideration.

2. The facts in a nutshell are as under.

3. A contract was entered into between the appellant and the first respondent (hereinafter the respondent) for carrying out the work of manufacture, supply and delivery of 171 sluice gates and for supervision of erection and commissioning of the said gates at sites. Subsequently certain disputes arose between the parties. As per the terms of the contract, when a dispute arises, firstly a claim is required to be made before the Chief Engineer and thereafter the matter is to be sent to the Commissioner and subsequently a reference can be made to the Arbitrator. A sole Arbitrator was appointed in connection with the dispute in question and statement of claim was filed before the Arbitrator. The statement of claims contains the claims made by the appellant on 25 counts. Out of the 25 claims, an objection was raised on behalf of the respondent about 17 claims on the ground that the said claims were never made by the appellants before the Chief Engineer or before the Commissioner of the Corporation and, therefore, the said claims cannot be decided by the Arbitrator in terms of contract between the parties. The respondent Corporation initially had filed a petition before this Court in connection with the said aspect and in the said proceedings the parties agreed to refer the dispute to the sole Arbitrator for deciding 17 claims including the question as to whether in terms of the contract those 17 claims can be said to be within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator or not. So far as remaining 8 claims are concerned, the same were decided by the sole Arbitrator and the Arbitrator after hearing the parties made an Award directing the respondent Corporation to pay to the appellant an amount of U.K. Pounds 3,77,252.91 plus Rs. 1,67,164.96. The Arbitrator allowed the interest on the basis of the claim in U.S. Pounds as well as claim in Rupees. The Arbitrator has not given reasons for giving an award which award is a non-speaking award. The award of the Arbitrator was challenged before the learned single Judge by way of Arbitration Petition being Arbitration Petition No.124 of 1994.

4. The learned single Judge held that the Arbitrator has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that he has jurisdiction to decide the eight claims as the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims in excess of the amount claimed before the Chief Engineer and the Commissioner. The learned single Judge found that the Arbitrator has decided the jurisdictional fact by ignoring the relevant material on record. Accordingly, the learned single Judge held that the award is required to be set aside on the said ground. The learned single Judge also found that the Arbitrator has followed strange procedure by admitting two letters on record to prove the claim that the claimants had operated overdraft account during the period between 1st January, 1985 and 31st July, 1987 without examining the author of the documents and without there being any oral evidence to prove the said documents. The learned single Judge found that the Award of the Arbitrator is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and it is an error of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Arbitration Petition was allowed by the learned single Judge in part and remitted the matter to the learned arbitrator for de novo consideration. Since the learned Arbitrator died at the time when the said order was passed, the matter was ultimately remitted to the arbitration of Justice H. Suresh to whom 17 claims were already referred earlier. It is the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge which is impugned at the instance of the appellant.

5. Mr. Kamdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the learned single Judge has committed a grave error in allowing he Arbitration Petition filed by the respondent. It is argued by Mr. Kamdar that the arbitration clause was invoked by the appellant in accordance with clauses 56 and 57 of the General Condition of Contract (GCC). It is submitted that as per clause 56.1 viz. dispute or difference is to be referred to the Arbitrator, the contractor was required to refer the disputes and differences to the Commissioner for adjudication who was required to decide the same within 90 days of appointment. As per clause 56.2, the contractor, if dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner, can invoke arbitration which can be said to be de novo proceedings and the Arbitrator under the said clause has been given wide and extensive powers of opening up, reviewing, revising any opinion, decision, valuation of the Commissioner and more importantly the said clause provided that neither party was limited by the claims as originally before the Commissioner. It is submitted that the Arbitrator is required to decide the dispute afresh and de novo on the basis of pleadings and as per evidence. It is submitted that the respondent earlier raised an objection in respect of 17 claims out of 25 claims as filed before the Arbitrator on the ground that the same are outside the jurisdiction as the same were not placed before the Commissioner. However, in respect of balance 8 claims both sides submitted to the jurisdiction of arbitration with conscious knowledge that the said claims are within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. Mr. Kamdar submitted that the said fact is evident from the letter dated 27th April, 1991 addressed by the respondent to the sole Arbitrator as well as letter dated 5th December, 1990 addressed by the respondent to the sole Arbitrator as also the minutes of meeting held on 18th April, 1991 and letter dated 27th April, 1991. It is further submitted by Mr. Kamdar that in the arbitration petition, no point was taken in respect of the arbitrability and/or jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in respect of eight claims in question. It is submitted that the point regarding alleged increase in quantum in respect of the said 8 claims has been raised for the first time in arbitration petition filed by the respondents but the same was never pleaded before the Arbitrator. It is submitted that in any event the arbitration proceedings as commenced before the Arbitrator are in fact a fresh and de novo proceedings and hence it was open for the appellant to enhance and/or include fresh claims. It is further submitted that it is well settled principle that the respective parties are entitled to enlarge scope of reference of arbitration, inter alia, merely by filing their statement of claim. In connection with the submission regarding enlargement of scope of reference, learned counsel Mr. Kamdar has relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court to which we will refer at later point of time. It is further argued that the Arbitrator has awarded lesser amount than what was originally claimed before the Commissioner. It is submitted that the learned single Judge has committed an error in holding that variation in quantum was a jurisdictional error. It is further submitted that during the course of proceedings before the Arbitrator, the appellants had produced various documents in support of their claim of payment of interest to Banks for the funds that were being arranged for by the appellant. The said letters were in the nature of third party documents evidencing payment of interest by the appellant. It is submitted that it was not necessary for the appellant to examine the author of the documents to provide the same. It is submitted that the said documents in question are the documents from third party Banks and that there is no obligation on the part of the appellant to lead oral evidence to prove the same. It is submitted that it is open to the Arbitrator to draw an adverse inference in view of the fact that the appellant had not led oral evidence to prove the same. It is submitted that it was open to the respondent to lead their own evidence and produce positive material on record to disprove the said documents. It is submitted that the Evidence Act does not apply to the arbitration proceedings. It is submitted that it is not obligatory on the part of the appellant to examine the witnesses only to facilitate the respondent to take cross-examination of the witnesses. It is submitted that the learned single Judge has committed an error in holding that there is breach of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the Award in question is a nonspeaking order and, therefore, it is not possible to find out the mind of the learned Arbitrator as to which particular documents had weighed in his mind at the time of passing of the award. It is submitted that the quality and quantity of the evidence cannot be re-examined in the arbitration proceedings especially when the Award in question is a non speaking award. Mr. Kamdar submitted that the order of the learned single Judge is accordingly required to be set aside by dismissing the arbitration petition.

6. Mr. Setalvad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the present arbitration proceedings pertain to eight claims out of total 25 claims in respect of the contract work undertaken by the appellant for the respondent Corporation. It is submitted that out of 25 claims, 17 claims have been referred to arbitration and the award is awaited. It is submitted that regarding 17 claims, the same were earlier adjudicated by Mr. H. Suresh who by his award dated 20th March, 2003 held that he had no jurisdiction to enter into 17 claims as the mandatory procedure prescribed by clauses 56.1 and 56.2 had not been followed by the appellant and the award was accepted by the appellant. Subsequently the appellant followed the procedure prescribed by clauses 56.5 and 56.2 in respect of 17 claims. It is submitted that the learned single Judge after remanding the matter regarding 8 claims directed that the same be decided by the same Arbitrator so that all the 25 claims can be decided by the same arbitrator. Mr. Setalvad further submits that the documents which were produced before the Arbitrator were wrongly admitted in evidence without giving an opportunity to the respondent to cross-examine author of the said documents. It is submitted that one of the documents is in connection with the internal correspondence dated 22nd November, 1989 addressed by one John Gilbert to one Pauline Jackson of the appellant which internal memo sets out certain dates and certain interest rates. No source of information by which interest rates set out in the document is produced by the appellant. It is submitted that so far as letter dated 4th March, 1989 is concerned, the same is addressed by one Jacaran Transport which quoted certain handling and storage rates. There is nothing to show that the rates quoted in the said letter were accepted or approved or acted upon by the appellant. So far as letters dated 2nd August, 1991 and 22nd August, 1991 are concerned, the said letters were merely signed in the name of Peat Marwick McLintock and not in the name of any particular person. It is submitted that certain letters produced before the Arbitrator were received from Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Bank wherein different figures have been quoted. It is submitted that all these documents were admitted in evidence by the Arbitrator after commencement of arguments, despite objections raised by the respondent. The author of the said documents was not examined and, therefore, the respondent was denied right to cross-examine the persons who had written the said documents. The respondent was denied the right of cross-examination with regard to the veracity and in connection with the correctness and contents and with respect to the effect of the contents of the documents which had been illegally admitted in evidence by the Arbitrator in breach of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the claim of the appellant in the arbitration included claim for storage and handling charges. The appellant sought to prove and support their claim by the letters, documents and also included a claim of interest on the basis of the said documents. The appellant tried to prove that they were maintaining overdraft account that the monies paid by respondent to the appellant were credited to the said overdraft account and that the appellant had paid interest to their bankers for the overdraft facilities. The respondent was denied the opportunity of cross-examining the author of the said documents as the author was not examined and yet the documents were taken on record and held to be proved. It is submitted that the respondent had repeatedly objected to the procedure adopted by the Arbitrator. Yet the documents were sought to be produced and admitted into evidence after commencement of the arguments and that too during the course of arguments. It is submitted that the Arbitrator had also recorded minutes of the hearing held on 3rd September,1991 wherein it was recoded that the appellant did not desire to lead any oral evidence and in case respondent led any such evidence, oral evidence in rebuttal would be led. It is pointed out that respondent filed a detailed application on 16th September, 1991 before the Arbitrator raising specific and detailed objections to the various documents which were permitted to be admitted into evidence by the Arbitrator. Mr. Setalvad has invited our attention to various applications filed from time to time by respondent in this behalf before the Arbitrator. It is submitted that the Arbitrator rejected the said applications by his order dated 4th February, 1992. It is submitted that the Arbitrator has committed a legal misconduct by admitting documents in evidence in breach of the principles of natural justice. In order to substantiate the same, Mr. Setalvad has relied upon certain judgment to which we will refer later on. It is also further submitted that it is not in dispute that the claims referred to the Commissioner were different from those referred to the arbitration. It is submitted that the claims which were referred to the Commissioner were smaller than those referred to the arbitration. It is submitted that the claim is first required to be lodged before the Commissioner and the Commissioner must have entire claim before him so as to permit him to adjudicate the same. It is submitted that the Arbitrator would not have the jurisdiction in respect of any claims which were not raised before the Commissioner. It is submitted that the claims referred to the Arbitrator were enhanced claims and, therefore, Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to enter into the same contrary to the terms of the contract. On this point, Mr. Setalvad has relied upon certain judgments of the Supreme Court to which we will refer later on. It is submitted that the learned single Judge has considered the matter in its proper perspective and the said award of the learned single Judge is not required to be interfered with in this appeal.

7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in the matter at length. We have gone through the award of the Arbitrator as well as the order of the learned single Judge. We have also gone through the voluminous documents forming part of the proceedings and have also gone through the written submissions filed by both the sides.

8. The principal question which requires consideration is as to whether the learned single Judge has erred in setting aside the Award of the sole Arbitrator which is a non-speaking award. It is also required to be considered as to whether the learned single Judge has committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the Arbitrator could not have considered the 8 claims in question especially when the claim before the Commissioner was of lesser amount than the one placed before the Arbitrator. It is also required to be considered as to whether there is a breach of procedure on the part of the Arbitrator in admitting the documents in question without proving the same by examining the authors of the said documents.

9. Regarding the question about enlargement of the scope of reference, Mr. Kamdar has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Raymon and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 90. In paragraph 23 of the said judgment, it has been held as under:

"The decisions in National Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.s case, AIR 1956 Cal 11 and Pratabmull Rameswars case, 64 Cal WN 616 : (AIR 1960 Cal 702), relied on for the appellants are not really in point. In both these cases, there was a valid submission on which the arbitrators proceeded to act. Before them the parties filed statements and therein they put forward a claim which was not actually covered by the reference and invited them to give their decision thereon. The party again whom the award had gone contended that the arbitrators had acted without jurisdiction in deciding the claim. In overruling this contention the Court held that it was open to the parties to enlarge the scope of a reference by inclusion of a fresh dispute, that they must be held to have done that when they filed their statements, putting forward claims not covered by the original agreement, that these statements satisfied the requirements of S.2(a) of the Arbitration Act and that it was competent to the arbitrators to decide the dispute. The point to be noticed is that in both these cases there was no want of initial jurisdiction, but a feeding of existing jurisdiction by an enlargement of the scope of the reference. That this does not involve any question of jurisdiction in the arbitrators will be clear from the scheme of the Act. If an award deals with a matter not covered by the agreement it could either be modified under S.15(a) or remitted under S.16(1)(a). And where such matter is dealt with on the invitation of the parties contained in the statements, there can be no difficulty in holding that the arbitrators acted within jurisdiction. In the present case the arbitrators had no jurisdiction when they entered on their duties nor is it established that there was any subsequent agreement which could be held to be a submission of the question as to the validity of the contract. We are accordingly of the opinion that the respondents are not precluded by what they did before the arbitrators from agitating the question of the validity of the contracts in the present proceedings."

9.1. Mr. Kamdar also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kundale & Associates Vs. Konkan Hotels (P) Ltd., (1999)3 SCC 533 wherein the Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs 4 and 5 as under:

"4. Before the arbitrator the appellants had made a total claim of Rs.98,023/-. This consisted of the claims in connection with the construction work and extra work as also giving credit for the amounts already received. In the course of the hearings before the arbitrator the appellants filed a revised statement of claim in which they reduced their total claim to Rs.66,499/-. The High Court commented on the fact that there was considerable variance between the original claim and the revised claim. There is an increase in certain claims and a reduction in certain other claims. The High Court has also commented that a copy of this revised statement was not formally served on the respondents and their advocates in the same manner as the earlier statement of claims. The trial court in its judgment has observed that the revised statement of claim was filed before the arbitrator, a copy of it was handed over to the respondents and the respondents and their advocates in the course of their arguments dealt with the revised claims. There is, therefore, no prejudice to the respondents on account of revised claims for reduced amount being filed by the appellants. The High Court has also commented on the fact that the award itself does not show that the revised claim was considered by the arbitrator. The award being a non-speaking award, there is no question of the arbitrator dealing in the award itself with various claims or revised claims made by the parties before him.

5. We fail to see how the High Court could have come to the conclusion that there is any legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator in giving the award. The Court cannot go into the merits or otherwise of the claims which were before the Arbitrator. The decision of the Arbitrator is binding on both the parties."

9.2. Mr. Kamdar has further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Asis Ranjan Mohanty, (1999)9 SCC 249. In paragraph 12 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as under:

"12. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the respondent has merely tried to take advantage of the appointment of a new arbitrator to increase his claims without there being any basis for such increase. They have also drawn our attention to the earlier conduct of the respondent. Initially the respondents letter referred only to the claim of Rs.37,106. However, when the arbitrator was appointed, the claims filed before the arbitrator were to the tune of Rs.1,35,959. Similarly, when the second arbitrator was appointed, these claims were again increased by Rs.4,05,584. This, according to the appellant, showed a lack of bona fides in raising the claims. It was for the arbitrator to decide whether these claims raised by the respondent had any merit or not. In fact, although the subsequently filed claims were to the tune of an extra amount of Rs.4,05,584, the arbitrator has only awarded to the respondent a sum of Rs.95,952 in respect of those claims. It was for the arbitrator to examine the merits of the claims raised by the respondent and to give a suitable award. We cannot examine the merit or otherwise of all these claims."

9.3. Our attention was also invited by Mr. Kamdar to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Paradip Port Trust and others Vs. Unique Builders, (2001)2 SCC 680 wherein the Supreme Court has observed in para 10 thus:

"10. The clause relating to the arbitration extracted above, is wide enough to cover all disputes or differences of opinion between the parties as to their respective rights and obligations or as to the true intent and meaning of those presents or any articles or conditions thereof (except the matter regarding which the decision has been specifically provided for in the terms and conditions). The claims made in the statement by the Company, in our view, are clearly covered and they fall within the scope of arbitration clause. The learned counsel, referring to claims 2 and 7 urged that these claims were outside the terms of agreement. The Company made a claim for Rs.12,93,260 against various heads and the arbitrator granted Rs.8,61,315 with interest as stated in the award. It is an award made in lump sum. It is not possible to say whether the arbitrator awarded any amount under claims 2 and 7 when the award was made only for Rs.8,61,315 as against the total claim of Rs.12,93,260. It is not possible to read the mental process of the arbitrator as to how he came to the conclusion in passing the award for lump sum amount. Further, the award passed by the arbitrator cannot be set aside assuming that another view is possible. Thus we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel that the award passed by the arbitrator was beyond the scope of either the arbitration clause or the terms of the contract or it was in excess or opposed to the terms of reference. In view of what is stated above, it is not possible to take a view that the award passed by the arbitrator was arbitrary or unsustainable."

9.4. Reliance is also placed by Mr. Kamdar to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mcdermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, (2006)11 SCC 181 wherein the Supreme Court has observed thus:

"101. In fact BSCL never raised any plea before the arbitrator that the said claim was arbitrary or beyond its authority. Such an objection was required to be raised by BSCL before the arbitrator in terms of Section 16 of the 1996 Act. It may also be of some interest to note that this Court even prior to the enactment of a provision like Section 16 of the 1996 Act in Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Raymon & Co. (India)(P) Ltd., (1963)3 SCR 209 : AIR 1963 SC 90, Dharma Prathishthanam Vs. Madhok Construction (P) Ltd., (2005)9 SCC 686 clearly held that it is open to the parties to enlarge the scope of reference by inclusion of fresh disputes and they must be held to have done so when they filed their statements putting forward claims not covered by the original reference."

10. Mr. Setalvad, on the other hand, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s. Prannath Vishwanath Rawley, AIR 1977 SC 2014. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court was considering the scope of Section 20 of the 1940 Act wherein it is held that where a difference has arisen and where any persons have entered into an arbitration agreement they may apply to the Court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the agreement relates, that the agreement be filed in Court. The court shall order the agreement to be filed and shall make an order of reference to the arbitrator appointed by the parties. It is held that when an agreement is filed in court and order of reference is made, then the claim as a result of the order of reference is limited to a particular relief and the arbitrator cannot enlarge the scope of the reference and entertain fresh claims without a further order of reference from the Court. The court has considered the matter from the angle of Section 20 of the 1940 Act.

10.1. Mr. Setalvad has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. G.S. Atwal & Co., (1996)3 SCC 568. Relying on the said judgment it is submitted that it is not open for the arbitrator to unilaterally enlarge the reference and act contrary to the terms of the contract. In paragraphs 6 and 9 the Supreme Court has observed thus:

"6. To constitute an arbitration agreement, there must be an agreement that is to say the parties must be ad idem. Arbitrability of a claim depends upon the dispute between the parties and the reference to the arbitrator. On appointment, he enters upon that dispute for adjudication. The finding of the arbitrator on the arbitrability of the claim is not conclusive, as under Section 33 ultimately it is the court that decides the controversy. In U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Vs. Indure (P) Ltd., (1996)2 SCC 667, a three-Judge Bench of this Court (to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J. was a member) was to consider the question whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to decide the arbitrability of the claim itself. In that context, the question arose : whether there was an arbitration agreement for reference to the Arbitrator? It was held that the arbitrability of the controversy of the claim being a jurisdictional issue, the arbitrator cannot clothe himself with jurisdiction to conclusively decide whether or not he had power to decide his own jurisdiction. Relying upon the passage in Russel on Arbitration (19th Edn.) at p.99, this Court had held that it can hardly be within the arbitrators jurisdiction to decide whether or not a condition precedent to his jurisdiction has been fulfilled. The arbitrator had no power to decide his own jurisdiction. The arbitrator is always entitled to inquire whether or not he has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. He can refuse to deal with the matter at all and leave the parties to go to the Court if he comes to the conclusion that he has no power to deal with the matter; or he can consider the matter and if he forms the view that the contract upon which the claimant is relying on and from which, if established, he alone has jurisdiction, he can proceed to decide the dispute accordingly. Whether or not the arbitrator has jurisdiction and whether the matter is referred to or is within the ambit of clause for reference of any difference or dispute which may arise between the parties, it is for the court to decide it. The arbitrator by a wrong decision cannot enlarge the scope of the submission. It is for the court to decide finally the arbitrability of the claim in dispute or any clause or a matter or a thing contained therein or the construction thereof. ... ......"

"9. It would thus be seen that appointment of an arbitrator is founded upon the agreement between the parties. Once on his appointment either by consensus or by an order of the court, the parties put forth their claim and participate in the proceedings, the parties acquiesce to the appointment of the arbitrator and the award made thereon binds the parties. The party who has suffered the award is precluded from questioning the power and jurisdiction of the arbitrator to make the award. The reason being that the parties have by contract consented to the forum to adjudicate their dispute and to give a decision, by a non-speaking or speaking award in terms of the agreement. This principle is inapplicable to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to unilaterally enlarge his own power to arbitrate any o0f the disputes. It is seen that by express agreement between the parties, arbitrability of the claim for refund of the hire charges was referred to arbitration and T. Raja Ram came to be appointed as arbitrator and entered upon that reference. But when claim was made, he enlarged the dispute unilaterally without there being any agreement by the appellant. In fact they objected to the enlargement of the scope of the arbitration. Since arbitrator went on adjudicating the disputes, they were left with no option but to participate in the proceedings as the claims were pressed for and parties submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Therefore, it did not amount to acquiescence. The jurisdiction of the arbitrator is founded upon the agreement between the parties. To the extent of the agreement, the parties are bound by the decision of the arbitrator. But the arbitrator cannot enlarge the scope of his arbitration and make in a non-speaking award, a lump sum amount of all claims, after enlarging his jurisdiction on non-accepted or objected claims......."

11. At this stage, a reference may be made to the relevant clauses of the contract between the parties hereto providing for arbitration. Clause 56.1 of the agreement provides that if any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever (other than those in respect of which, the decision of any person is, by the contract, expressed to be final and binding) shall arise between the Engineer or any other officers and the contractor in connection with or arising out of the contract or the carrying out of the works, it shall in the first instance be referred to and settled by the Commissioner. Clause 56.2 provides for arbitration. As per the said clause, if the Commissioner failed to give notice of his decision within a period of 90 days after being requested as aforesaid, or if the contractor is dissatisfied with any such decision, the contractor may within 90 days after receiving notice of such decision or within 90 days after the expiration of the first name period of 90 days (as the case may be) require that the matter or matters in dispute be referred to arbitration. All disputes or differences in respect of which the decision (if any) of the Commissioner has not become final and binding as aforesaid shall be finally settled by arbitration as prescribed in the arbitration agreement. As per clause 56.2, the arbitrator or arbitrators shall have full power to open up review and revise any decision, opinion, direction, certificate or valuation of the Commissioner and neither party shall be limited in the proceedings before such arbitrator or arbitrators to the evidence or arguments put before the Commissioner for the purpose of obtaining his said decision. In the present case it is required to be noted that before the Arbitrator, 8 claims were pressed into service by the appellant. It seems that in the written statement no dispute about the claim was raised. As stated above, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Asis Ranjan Mohanty (supra) wherein a subsequent claim was made before the new arbitrator and it is held by the Supreme Court that in respect of additional claim it was for the arbitrator to examine the merits of the claims raised by the respondent and to give a suitable award. In the instant case, the arbitration clause clearly provides that the Arbitrator shall have full power to open up, review and revise any decision, opinion, direction, certificate or valuation of the Commissioner and neither party shall be limited in the proceedings before such Arbitrator or arbitrators to the evidence or arguments put before the Commissioner for the purpose of obtaining the said decision. It is required to be noted that in the present case both the sides have led their documentary evidence and have submitted that they did not want to lead any oral evidence before the Arbitrator and, therefore, on merits so far as the eight claims are concerned, the parties have contested the proceedings before the Arbitrator. In so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Mining Corporation (supra) is concerned, it was in connection with the proceedings under Section 20 of the Act of 1940 wherein it is held that when an agreement is filed in court and order of reference is made under Section 20(4) of the Act of 1940, then the claim as a result of the order of reference is limited to a particular relief and the arbitrator cannot enlarge the scope of the reference and entertain fresh claims without a further order of reference from the Court. It is required to be noted that the arbitrator has awarded a sum to the appellant which is less than the amounts as originally claimed by the appellant before the Commissioner. In view of the same, it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to the other side especially when the other side has also contested the claim before the Arbitrator by placing their documentary evidence. The terms of reference before the sole arbitrator was as under:

"In the matter of disputes arising out of the contract for supply and delivery of C.I.Sluice Gates, contract No.30/SD/Gr.I between Ham Baker & Co. and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, the Arbitrator to decide on the claims of the contractors and the counter claims of the Corporation and decide the amount, if any payable by the Corporation to the Contractor in Pound and rupee currencies arising out of such claims."

The sole arbitrator gave directions to the parties for submission of statement of claims, reply to the statement of claims, rejoinder by the claimants, etc. The appellant thereafter submitted their statement of claims to which the respondent submitted their sur-rejoinder. It is to be noted that under clause 56.2 of the arbitration agreement, the contractor, if dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner, is permitted invoke arbitration clause which is to be treated as de novo proceedings and the Arbitrator has given wide powers regarding opening up, reviewing, revising any opinion, decision, valuation of the Commissioner and that neither party was limited by the claims as originally before the Commissioner. Considering the said arbitration clause, so far as eight claims which have been adjudicated by the Arbitrator is concerned, it cannot be said that the Arbitrator has exceeded the scope of arbitration and/or has committed jurisdictional error in proceeding with the same and as pointed out by Mr. Kamdar, in respect of 8 claims the respective parties were ad idem consensus and that the same are within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator for which Mr. Kamdar has relied upon letters dated 27th April, 1991, 5th December, 1990, 27th April, 12991 addressed by the respondent to the sole Arbitrator and the minutes of the meeting held on 18th April, 1991. As pointed out earlier, out of 25 claims, ultimately parties agreed to go to the arbitration only in respect of 8 claims. It seems that the point regarding increase of quantum in respect of the said claims seems to have been raised for the first time in the arbitration petition. Even otherwise, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of McDermott (supra) that it is open to the parties to enlarge the scope of reference by inclusion of fresh disputes and they must be held to have done so when they file their statements putting forward claims not covered by the original reference. In view of the same, we do not find any substance in the objection raised that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of reference.

12. Even otherwise, looking to the arbitration clause provided in the agreement, the Arbitrator has given power to determine the claim even de novo and initially an objection was taken only regarding those claims which were not put forward before the Commissioner and, therefore, 17 claims were taken out and only 8 claims were referred to the Arbitrator which claims have been adjudicated by the Arbitrator. Considering the aforesaid, in our view, it cannot be said that the Arbitrator has committed jurisdictional error in proceeding with the 8 claims and as pointed out by Mr. Kamdar that even otherwise while adjudicating those 8 claims, Arbitrator has not awarded any additional amount which were raised before the Commissioner. In the case of Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, through the Municipal Commissioner and others, 1999(1) Bom.C.R. 112 a learned single Judge of this Court has held that clause 96 provides that a higher officer has to find out as to whether the view taken by the Engineer with regard to the contention raised by the contractor is correct or not. This is something like a statutory notice which is contemplated before filing a suit against statutory bodies so that superior officers can apply their mind and arrive at a particular decision. The superior officer has to decide in his absolute discretion and not by holding any enquiry worked out in a judicial manner. In our view, it cannot be said that the Commissioner of the Corporation was acting as an Arbitrator in any manner or that it has a two tier arbitration system. Considering the said aspect, we are not in a position to agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge and, in our view, the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to decide the dispute in connection with the eight claims in question. On the aforesaid ground, the contention of the appellant is, therefore, required to be upheld.

13. The next point which is required to be considered is in connection with admitting certain documents in evidence and proving the same. It is no doubt true that the Evidence Act is not applicable to the arbitration proceedings. In the case of Aboobaker Latif Vs. Reception Committee of the 48th Indian National Congress and another, AIR 1937 Bombay 410 it is also held that the Evidence Act does not apply to arbitration proceedings. It is submitted by Mr. Kamdar that since it is a non-speaking award, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the Arbitrator has based his award relying on certain documents. It is submitted by Mr. Kamdar that it cannot be spelled out as to whether the Award was passed on the basis of these documents. However, in our view, even in case of a non speaking order, principles of natural justice is required to be observed. Court can certainly consider as to whether any legal evidence is available in the matter. It is true that the power of the Court in such cases may be limited and this Court cannot sit in appeal over the Arbitrators Award and to find out sufficiency of evidence. However, in case of procedural defect, the Court can still interfere with such award even if the same is a non-speaking award. It is required to be noted that there is nothing on record to show as to what was the rate of interest charged at the relevant time in connection with the overdraft account. In the case of Vinayak Vishnu Sahasrabudhe Vs. B. G. Gadre and others, AIR 1959 Bombay 39 a learned single Judge of this Court has held that though the Arbitration Act does not provide for the procedure to be followed by the arbitrators, even so, the Arbitrators are bound to apply the principles of natural justice.

13-A. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Setalvad in the case of Wazir Chand Karan Chand Vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1989 Delhi 175, wherein the Delhi High Court has held that the Arbitrator is not bound by the technical rules of procedure but he cannot ignore rules of natural justice. Even if the award is a nonspeaking order, it must be in accordance with law and in consonance with the principles of natural justice. In the present case, the documents which were not proved were admitted in evidence in spite of serious objections raised by the Respondent. In our view, the learned single Judge was right in holding that the said award suffers from non-application of mind and deserves to be set aside on the aforesaid ground. At this stage, reference is required to be made to the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Banwari Lal Vs. Jagannath Prasad and another, AIR 1958 All 717, wherein the Division Bench has observed in paragraph 6 as under.

"6. It is a well established principle of law that an arbitrator ought not to hear or receive evidence from one side in the absence of the other side without giving the side affected by such evidence the opportunity of meeting and answering it. In Russell on Awards (7th Edition page 191), the proposition is put thus:

"Neither side can be allowed to use any means or influencing his (the arbitrators) mind, which are not known to, and capable of being met and resisted by the other. As much as possible the arbitrator should decline to receive private communications from either litigant respecting the subject matter of the reference.

It is a prudent course to make a rule of handing over to the opponent all written statements sent to him by a party, and to take care that no kind of communication concerning the points under discussion be made to him without giving information of it to the other wide."

And, again, (Page 194):

"This course of conduct, of examining one party, or the witnesses of one party, or receiving evidence from one party in the absence of the other, is often adopted by mercantile arbitrators. But the Courts in the above instance and in many others, have strongly repudiated the idea that a different course is allowable in this respect in the case of mercantile referees; and although the lawful usage of merchants may be imported into the contract of reference, they have said that the practice of receiving evidence which the party affected has no opportunity of meeting is not a lawful one."

14. Mr. Setelvad has strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and others, AIR 1972 SC 330 wherein it is held that the domestic tribunals are required to follow the principles of natural justice. In paragraph 14 it has been held as under.

"... But the application of principle of natural justice does not imply that what is not evidence can be acted upon. On the other hand what it means is that no materials can be relied upon to establish a contested fact which are not spoken to by persons who are competent to speak about them and are subjected to cross-examination by the party against whom they are sought to be used. When a document is produced in a Court or a Tribunal the question that naturally arises is, is it a genuine document, what are its contents and are the statements contained therein true."

15. In our view, even in case of non-speaking order, the Court can examine the aforesaid aspect that accepting evidence behind the back of a party is held to be a legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Wazir Chand (supra).

16. Mr. Setelvad has submitted that the jurisdiction to remit an award by the Court to the arbitrator is a discretionary jurisdiction and that the judicial discretion exercised by the learned single Judge should not be interfered with unless the discretion has been misused. The Appellate Court would not interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge in remitting the Award unless it is found that the said discretion has been misused. To buttress this point, Mr. Setelvad has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramachandra Reddy & Co. Vs. State of A.P. and others, (2001)4 SCC 241 and the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 5 are as under:

"5. Under the Arbitration Act, Section 16 is the provision under which the court may remit the award for reconsideration of an arbitrator and necessity for remitting the award arises when there are omissions and defects in the award, which cannot be modified or corrected. Remission of an award is in the discretion of the court and the powers of the court are circumscribed by the provisions of Section 16 itself. Ordinarily, therefore, a court may be justified in remitting the matter if the arbitrator leaves any of the matters undetermined or a part of the matter which had not been referred to and answered and that part cannot be separated from the remaining part, without affecting the decision on the matter, which was referred to arbitration or the award is so indefinite as to be incapable of execution or that the award is erroneous on the face of it. Discretion having been conferred on the court to remit an award, the said discretion has to be judicially exercised and an appellate court would not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion unless the discretion has been misused. What is an error apparent on the face of an award which requires to be corrected, has always been a subject matter of discussion. An error of law on the face of the award would mean that one can find in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto stating the reasons for a judgment some legal propositions which are the basis of the award and which can be said to be erroneous. Documents not incorporated directly or indirectly into the award cannot be looked into for the purpose of finding out any alleged error. The courts are not to investigate beyond the award of the arbitrators and the documents actually incorporated therein and, therefore, when there would be no patent error on the face of the award, it would not be open for the court to go into the proceedings of the award. If the application for remittance filed by the claimants invoking jurisdiction of the court under Section 16 is examined from the aforesaid standpoint and if the order of the learned civil court, remitting claim Item 1 is tested in the light of the discussions made above, the conclusion is irresistible that no case for remittance had been made out and the learned trial Judge exercised his discretion on the grounds which do not come within the four corners of the provisions of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. In fact no reasons had been ascribed for interference with the award, rejecting claim item 1 and for remittance of the same. The High Court being the court of appeal, was therefore fully justified in exercise of its appellate power in correcting the error made by the Civil Judge in remitting claim Item 1."

17. In the case of Sangamner Bhag Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Krupp Industries Ltd., (2002)5 SCC 417, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the Appellate Court was not justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion unless it is mis-used.

18. Considering the case law on the subject and facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, admitting certain documents in evidence by the Arbitrator, without the same being proved , is an act of legal misconduct. In our view, in blatant breach of the principles of natural justice the Arbitrator permitted the documents to be admitted in evidence, inspite of repeated objections raised by the respondent. By receiving such documents, therefore, amounts to a procedural error which can also be said to in breach of principles of natural justice. The learned single Judge has given appropriate reasons in this behalf and considering the facts of the case, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge on the aforesaid aspect. Since the learned single Judge in an arbitration petition has exercised discretion by remitting the matter to the Arbitrator who is now in charge of adjudication of remaining 17 claims, in our view, the said decision of the learned single Judge is not required to be interfered with by us in this appeal. Since the original arbitrator has died and since the Arbitrator to whom the matter is remitted by the learned single Judge i.e. Justice H. Suresh (Retd.) is seized of the matter regarding remaining 17 claims, it would be just and proper that these eight claims also now should be adjudicated by the said Arbitrator. Accordingly, the award of the Arbitrator is required to be set aside which has rightly been set aside by the learned single Judge on the ground of admitting certain documents without the same being proved in evidence. Even though it is a non-speaking order, in our view, this Court can interfere with such an Award, if there is procedural irregularity or when there is an error apparent on the face of record and it cannot be said that such defect cannot be cured by the Court or beyond the reach of the Court in an arbitration petition. This appeal and the Notice of Motion are accordingly dismissed by upholding the view of the learned single Judge on the point about the admissibility of the documents in question and only on the aforesaid point, the order of the learned single Judge is upheld.

19. Considering the fact that the proceedings are very old, the learned Arbitrator may decide the reference and give his award within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order from the parties. The parties may approach the Arbitrator within a period of fifteen days from today and the Arbitrator may thereafter declare his award within three months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Arbitrator.

Ordered accordingly.