N. CHELLAPPAN v. SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANOTIIBR November 21, 1974 [A. N. RAY, C.J.; K. K. MA.THEW AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ,J Arbitration Act-Error apparent 011 the face of the record-Allowing timr. harred claims w/1eiher amoullt ta error apparent on the face of the record- Wh.~ther an umpire has.jurisdiction to enter upon the reference in case arbitrator.< fail to make an award within the specified time-Parties participatinl{, b,.fore the Sole Arbitrator without demur whether precluded from
cha//e11g111g the judsdiction of the Arbitrator by acquiescence. The appellant wa~ a contractor entrusted to construct a Dam by the Kerala State ElectriCity Board. Disputes arose b:tween the appeUant and the respon- dent about the non-execution of the work: 5 points were referred for the deci- sion of 2 arbitrators. The arbitrators appointed an Umpire. The Arbitrator did not make the award within the time limit which was extended from ·time to time. Thereupon the appeua·nt filed an application for revoking the authority of the arbitrators on the ground that the arbitrators did not make the award within the time limit and it was further prayed that the Umpire might be directed to enter upon the reference to proceed with the arbitration. One of the arbitrators in his statement submitted that he had no objection to his being discharged as he no longer wished to be an arbitrator. The appellant also filed anotlier applica- tion praying to appoint the Umpire as a Sole. Arbitrator in place of the two arbi- trators. The Court by its order dated the 22nd June, 1972 revoked the authority of the arbitrators and directed the Umpire to enter upon the reference in his capa- city as Umpire and also appointed the Umpire as the sole arbitrator. The trial court noted in its ord~r that the Umoire was directed to make the award by con- sent of parties, The appellant and the respQndent participated in the proceedings before the Umpire without demur. The Umpire made an award in favour of the · appellant for nearly Rs. 30 lacs. The respondent filed an aisplication challenging the awa~d under sections l6, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act and praying to set 11slde the award. The appellant field an application to pass a decree in terms of the award. The Trial Court· dismissed the application filed by the respondent and passed decree in terms of the award.
On an appeal filed by the respondent, the High Court came to the conclusion that the Umpire as sole arbitrator had no jurisdiction to pass the award as the orders revoking the authority of the arbitrators lo pass an award and appointing the Umpire ns sole Arbitrator was bad in law and· that no sufficient opportunity was given to the respondent to substantiate its objections to the award. On appeal 'by special leave it was contended by the respondent before this Court that the Umpire as sole Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to enter upon the reference and pass the award. It was also contended that the Umpire has allow- ed certain time barred claims of the appellant without examining the grievences of the claims.
Allowing the appeal, HELD : Since the order was passed by the consent of the parties the Umpire had the jurisdiction. Even apart from the consent of the parties rule 4 in the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act authorities the Umpire to enter upon the reference in case arbitrators fail to make award within the time specified. The Umpire did not lose his jurisdiction to pass the award merely because he wanted nn order from court bv way of abundan! ca:ution au.thorising him to enter upon the reference. [818E-GJ
HELD FURTHER : There is no doubt that the order was consent orucr. The respondent made no endeavour to have that order vacated by filing a review, if the statement in that order that it was passed on the basis of consent proceeded on a (1975] 2 s.c.R.
mistake of die court. On the other hand respondent participated in the proceed- iags before the. Umpire. The respondent is precluded from challenging the juds· diction of the Umpire by acquiescence.
[817G-H] HELD FURTHER : Negativing the contention that the Umpire should have examined the genuineness of the claims and whether the claims were time-barred. In the award the Umpire has referred to the claims under this head and the argn- menl~ of the respondent for disallowing the claim and thereafter awarded t.he amount without expressly aderoting to or deciding the question of limitation. From the findings of the Umpire under this head it is.not seen that these claims were barred by limitation. No mi·stake of law appears on the fa:e of the award. The Umpire as sole arbitrator was not bound to give a reasoned award and if in passing the award he makes a mistake of law or fact that is no ground for cha!·· lenging the validity of the award. It is only when a proposition of law is stated in the award an.ct it is the basis of that award that is erroneous, can the award be set aside or remitted on the grounds of error of Jaw apparent on the face of th·~ record. An error of law on the face of the award means that you can find in th~ award or a document actually incorporated thereto stating the reasons for his judgment, some. legal proposition which is the basis of th~ award and which you can say is erroneous. The Court has no jurisdiction to in~estigate into the merits of the case and to examine the documentary and oral evidence on the record for the purpose of finding out whether or not the arbitrator has committed an error ot law. [820F·H; 821E-D}
ARGUMENTS flor the appella11ts : . 1. The High Court of Kerala erred in holding that the order of the Subordinates Judge, Trivandrum, dated the 22nd June 19n in O.P. 11 of 1972 was made with· out jurisdiction and in further holding that the Umpire who entered' on reference consequent upon the said order had no jurisdiction for the following reasons : (a) The order in 0.P. 11 of 1972 is by consent of parties. The consent gil'en by the counsel for both sides before the learned Sub Judge amounts to a fr<"h arbitration agreement. Therefore, the Umpire had jurisdiction to enter on reference.
(b) Before the learned Subordinate Judge both the arbitrators ex~ressed their unwillingness to continue as arbitrators. Admittedly, the ar~itrators failed to make an award within the prescribed time. The time having been extended five times earlier and thdast date of the extended period having expired on 18th Decem- ber, 1971, the T)mpires could have entered on the reference on any day after the 19th December, 1971. However, as the appellant approached the Court of Subordinate Judge on 28th January, 1972 and as the respondent Board by its let· ter informed the Umpire that they. would be approaching the court for enlarge- ment of time, the Umpire did nbt enter on reference forthwith. After O.P. 11
was allowed as per the agreement of parties and after O.P. 19 filed by the Board for enlargement of time of the arbitrators. was dismissed on the same date, the Umpire was bo11nd. te>-enter on. reference forthwith both under the order of too Court and under Rule 4 of Schedule I of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, all
that the court did in a5King the Umpire to enter on reference as Umpire was to carry out the provisions of Rule 4 of Schedule I to the Arbitration Act. (c) The Board is precluded from challenging the authority of the Umpire inasnmch as he entered on reference pursuant to consent of parties. The Re:s-
pondent Board participated in the proceedings without ant· protest. Therefore, the Board is cstopped from challenging the authority of the Umpire. The Board by their conduct in participating in the proceedings before the Umpire is deemc:d to have waived the objections. if any, against the jurisdiction of the Umpire. The.re was no inherent lack of jurisdi,:lion in the Umpire and therefore the participation . by the Board amounts to acquiescence.
Th'!Y are estopped from challenging his authority. (d) After 18-12-1971 on which day the enlarged time for the arbitrators to make the award ·expired the arbitrators became functous officio. (e) In substance, the function of an 'Umpire' and a '$ole arbitrator' is the same.
In fact the order of Court under Section 12(2) is later in point of tim<~ and hence it can be ignored if it wa·s unnecessary, c c N, CHELLAPPAN V. KERALA ELECT. BOARD (Mathew, /,)
8 13. 2. The High Court was in error in exercising its suo moto jurisdiction in set· ting aside the order dated the 22nd June 1972 in O.P. 11 of 1972. The learned Subordinate Judge was the competent authority to entertain an application under Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act.
Therefore, his order asking the Umpire to enter on reference does not suffier from j'urisdictional errors enume· rated in Section 115 of the C.P.C. The court could exercise suo moto power of revision only if the order could be revised under Section 115. 3. The award being an award of money and there being no reason given for the award, there could be no error .in the award much less on the face of it. The arbitrator is not bound to give reason for the award and he has given none. The court is not competent to enter into an elaboratre discussion of the evidenee etc., ·in order to find out whether the.re is ainy error in the award. The synopsis of con~ testing parties does not form part of an award.
The High Court has proceeded as though it is sitting in appeal on the award. The arbitration agreement specifically states that no other question of dispute, or difference, arisings, settlements except those detailed in .the agreement re· mains. So, the dispute as to who caused the breach of contract has also been given up. Since there is no dispute as to who caused the breach of contract the security amount which is appellant's own money is liable to be refunded without any protest. Hence the Umpire was competent to make the award in respect of the said sum and has rightly awarded it to the appellant. The 'retention amount' and the "amount withheld" are clearly in respect of the 'work'. The claim of the appellant was to the extent of about Rs. 78 lakhs. The Utn· pfr'e, after considering the objection of the respondent disallowed claims upto about Rs. 48 lakhs on the ground that they are outside the scope of the arbitra· tion agreement. After this, the rtspondent participated in th. e. arbitration w. ithout protest. They are now estopped from challenging the awar9 on the tiroun\I of excess of jurisdiction.
The Umpire, being a Judge, both in respect of questions of law and fact is competent to decide even the q,uestion of limitation. From the synopsis of argu· ments narrated by the Umpire 11 is clear that he has considered the plea of limita· ti on raised by the Respondent. . If the Ump ire bas ·considered the question the court cannot be asked to reopen the matter.
. . The appellant has .withdrawn O.S. 33 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Badagara pursuant to the arbitration agreement. The suit was within the period of limitation. Therefore; the claim is within the period of limitation. Since the claim under Item No. 1 specifically formed part of ~e-a:foitration agreement the Board is precluded from raising the plea of limitation. The Board was competent to contract and admit even time-barred claims under Section 25 of the Contract Act.
Therefore, the .award Is not liable to be set aside either on the ground of limi· talion or on the ground that the matter relating to security deposit etc., falls out· side the scope of reference. At any rate,' both the above claims are distinct alld £everable from the rest of the award.
3. The court has to decide the application under Section 33 only on affidavits. It is only if the court feels that evidence is required it can permit adducing of evidence. The court in this case considered the affidavits and arguments and found that no gronnd is made out to require oral evidence being adduced. The ·appli· cation filed by the respondent to set aside the award and the affidavit in support of it clearly show that on none of tlie grounds mentioned therein the award can be set aside. Therefore, the court was right in not permitting adducing of evidence. The respondent had sufficient opportunity to convince the court that the award suffers from error apparent on the face of the award.
Arguments for Respondent No. 1 L The High Comt, was right in holding that the Umpire had no jurisdiction to make the award and that the award is therefore invalid. The order passed by !he trial court on O.P. 11 of 1972 on 22-6-1972, revoking the authority of the two [1975) 2 S.C.R.
arbitrators, was wholly outside t.he scope of Sections 5 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In the trial court the appellant's advocate had expressly given up all contentions of fact including the contention that the said order on O.P. 11 of 1972 was a consent order. He must also be deemed to have given up the contention that the responilent Electricity Board had acquiesced in the proceedings before the· Umpire and is estopped from challenging the award. The correspondence bet- ween the Umpire and the appellant shows that the Umpire had rightly refused to enter on the reference under clause 4 of Schedule I of the Arbitration Act. If the trial court had not wrongly allowed O.P. 11 of 1972, it was bound to allow the respondent's application for extension of time of the arbitrators, being 0.P. 19 of 1972. The Umpire's purported jurisdiction must therefore be traced only to the trial court's order on O.P. 11 of 1972 which was clearly invalid. 2. Supposing that the Umpire had jurisdiction to make the award, the order of the trial court passed on 10-4-1973 in O.P. 21 of 1973 (dismissing the respon- dent's application for setting aside the award and granting the appellant's applic:a- tion for passing a decree in terms of the award) deserves to be set aside and the respondent's application for settiqg aside thf: award restored. The trial court's
order dated 10-4-1973 is vitiated because the court arbitrarily refused to allciw the respondent to lead any evidence and even to file an affidavit in rejoinder. This had caused injustice to the respondent.
• 3. Without prejudice to the above content.ions, it is submitted that m any case the award is clearly bad in respect of the following : (a) The arbitrator acted beyond the sc:ope of reference in awarding to the appellant the sum of Rs. 1,81,500/- which was paid by him by way of se1:urity for the due performance of the contract. Under item 2(a) of the agreement of reference the appellant was only ent.itled to be paid for the value of the work done by him; this itell! did not include the amount of security which could be refunded to him only if he had duly performed his part of the contract. The quest.ion wheth1~r the appellant had duly performed his part of the contract and was entitled to a refund of the security, was not referred to arbitratio:n, and the arbitration agreement had specifically provided that points of dispule not referred to arbitration were "deemed to be abandoned". (b) The four claims amounting to Rs. 4,95,000/- which were covered by point 1 of the l'oints of reference were patently barred by limitation. The award on its face shows that these claims had arisen before the end of March 1966 that the agreement of reference was made more than three years thereafter on 22-8-1970 and that there was not even a contention raised by' the appellant that there was any acknowledg1'' ment or part payment so as to exlend the period of limitation. The award of Rs. 4,95,000 /- was thus clearly based upon an erroneous assumption of law and the award is to that extent vitiated by an error of law apparent in the face thereof.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 682 of 1974. Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment & decree dated the: 10th October, 1973 of the Kerala High· Court in A. S. No. 153 of 1973.
B. Sen, C. Krishnan Nair and K. N. Bhat, for the Appellant. V. M. Tarkimde and A. G. Pudiss~ry, for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c ;MATHEW, J.-This is an appeal, by special leave, from the judg·- men~ of the Kerala High Court reversing an order passed by the Dls- lti~t ~udge making an award passed by the umpire a rule of the court. after dismissing an application to set aside the award.
c N. CHELLAPPAN v. KERALA ELECT. BOARD (Mathew, I.) 815 By a contract dated 21-4-1964, the construction of the Kuttiyadi Dam was entrusted by the Kera la State Electricity Board (for short the 'Board') to Shri Chellappan, the appellant,
Tpe work was left unfinished and therefore dispute arose between the appellant and the Board by reason of the non-execution of the work. While these dis- putes were pending, a second contract dated 15-7-1967 was entered into between the appellant and the Board for the execution of . the remaining part of th·~ work on or before 31-5-1969.
On 4-6-1968, the appellant stopped the work and the Chief Engineer terminated the second contract on 15-10-1968. The Board thereafter carried on with the unfinished work. On 22-8-1970, flve points were referred for the decision of two arbitrators both retired Chief Engineers, one to be nominated by the' Board and the other by the appellant. The
arbitrators entered on the reference and they nominated Shri Kumara Pillai, a retired judge of the Kerala High Court as umpire. the arbitrators did· not make the award within the time limit which was extended from time to time and which expired on 18-12-1971. Thereupon the appellant filed" 0.P. No.
11 of 1972 on 28-1-1972 for revoking the authority of the arbitrators under section 5 and 11 of · the Arbitration Act. The grounds for the application were that the arbitrators did not make the award within the time limit for submis- sion of the award and that ~h~y were disqualified by bias from pro· ceeding with the arbitration. The' prayer in the capplication was that Shri Kumara Pillai may be 'directed to enter upon the reference in his capacity as umpire and to proceed with ~he arbitration.
The arbitra- tors filed statements explaining the reasons for the delay in making the award and denying the bias attributed to them. One of the arbi- E . trators in his statement submitted that he has no objection to his being discharged as he no longer wished to be an arbitrator. In this O.P. the appellant filed another application on
31-3-1972 to appoint Shri Kumara Pillai as a sole arbitrator in place of the two arbitrators. By an order dated 22-6-1972, the court allowed O.P. 11 of 1972 and revoked the authority of the arbitrators and directed the umpire to enter upon the reference in his capacity as umpire and also 'allowed' the application (I.A. 1918/'72) to appoint Shri Kumara Pillai as the sole arbitrator.
On 5-3-1972, the Board filed O.P. No. 19 of 1972 for extension of time for passing the award by the. arbitrators. This was disposed, of by an order dated 22-6-1972 stating that since O.P. 11 .. of the 1972 had been allowed, it had become unnecessary to extend the period. The umpire entered on reference in his capacity as UIIll• pire on 30-6-1972. Both the appellant a·nd the Board particip1)fed in the proceedings before the umpire without demur and the
umpire made the award in favour of the appellant for nearly Rs. 30 lakhs on 15-2-1973. The umpire field the award in court on 30··2-1973 and prayed by O.P. 21 of 1973 that notice of the filing of
the award be issued to the parties and that the_ award be made a rule of the court. Notice was ordered on the application on 21-2-1973. The Board filed an application on 22-3-1973 [I.A. 895(a)] challeng- ing the award under sections 16, 30 and 3 3 of the Arbitration Act and praying to set aside the award. On 24-3-1973.
the appellant filed an application to pass a decree in terms of the award for interest · at 15 per cent from the date. of the decree. The appellant filed 11is objec:tion on 26-3-1973 to the Board'& application to set aside the award.
The case was posted for hearing on 4-4-1973. On that day, the Board filed an application-I.A. 1176 of 1973-stating that it was necessary to file a detailed affidavit in rejoinder to the objections filed by the appellant to the application of the Board to set aside the award and praying for an adjournment of the hearing. The applic:a- tion for adjournment was allowed. The matter came up for hearing on 6-4-1973. On that day, the Board filed I.A. 1223 of 1973 pray- ing for time for filing the affidavit in rejoinder.
On the same day, the appellant's counsel stated : "I submit that I ~hall not be pressing tlle tresh points raised in the affidavit for the purpose of today's arguments." In I.A. 1223 of 1973, the Board had stated that it was prepared to satisfy the court that the application under secti9ns 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act was prima facie maintainable and that it was necessary to adjourn the bearing for evidence and for final argument. The endorsement on the petition dated 6-4-1973 is "Call on the ad- journed date'\ On 10-4-1973 the court passed final orders dismis- sing the application filed by tht;. Board to set aside the award and passed a decree in terms of the award with interest at 6 per cent from the date of the decree till the realisation of the amount. All these orders were passed in O.P. 21 of 1\>73. On I.A. No. 1223 of 1973, the Court passed the order "rejected" on 10-4-1973.
In the appeal filed by the Board against the decree, the Hi1~h Court came to the conclu~ion that the~ umpire as sole arbitrator had no jurisdiction to pass the award as the orders revoking the authority of the arbitrat~ors to pass an award and appointing the umpire as sole arbitrator were bad in law and that no sufficient opportunity was
given to the Board to substantiate its objection to the award. The Court further held that the umpire made a mistake in respect of two matters referred. The Court, therefore, set aside the order in O. P. ·
11 of 1972 as well as the Award and the decree and remitted the ca.;e to the Court below for fresh disposal according to law. The main point which arises for consideration is whether the umpire as sofo arbitrator had jurisdiction to enter upon .the reference and pass the award. To decide the question it is necessary to S(~e ·
whether the order in O.P. 11 of 1972 appointing the umpire as sol'.e arbitrator was passed without jurisdiction or was vitiated by an error which made it 'bad in Jaw. In paragraph 5 of that order, the court has stated :
"When the matter came up for enquiry, it ·was repre- sented by both sides, that since the petitioner (appellant) has exoressed in so many words his want of confidence in the arbitrators and since· the arbitrators themselves have ex- pressed their willingness to be relieved of their duties as arbitrators, they may be dispensed with. In view of this
agreement, it has become necessary to revoke the authority c c N. CHELLAPPAN v. KERALA ELECT, BOARD (Mathew, I.) of respondent~ 2 and 3 (arbitrators) and to appoint the 4th respondent as umpire and to direct hiin to make the award''. We find it difficult to accept the reasoning of the High Court that the umpire had no jurisdiction to enter upon the reference. In the
first p]ace, the orders in O.P. 11 of 1972 was an order passed on consent of the appellant and the Board. Quite apart from this, rule 4 in the first schedule to the Arbitration Act authorises an umpire to enter upon the reference in case the arbitrators fail to make the award within the time specified.
Whatever be the reason, since the arbi- trators did not make the award within the extended time, the umpire, by virtue of tl:!e provision of rule could have entered upon the re- ference and made the award. It is, no goubt, true. that the umpire expressed his unwillingness tq enter upon the refer~nce without an order of the court.
That was because the Board had filed an appli- cation for extension of time for the arbitrators to pass the award. We do not think that the umpire lOst his jurisdiction to pass the award merely because he wanted an order from court by way of abundant caution authorizing him .to enter upon the reference.
Mr. Tarkunde for the respondent contended that the learned Judge who passed the order in 0.P. 11 of 1972 has said in his order mak- ing the award a rule of the court after rejecting the application 0f the Board to set aside the award, that the order passed iii O.P. 11 or 1972 was a considered order and that the Board should have appealed against that order if it felt aggrieved by it and that the order had become final.
Counsel submitted that w4en the Judge who passed the order in O.P. 11 of 1972 has himself stated that it was an order . passed on merits in his on,ier making the award a rule .of the court and that the Board should have appealed against the order, it can only lead to the conclusion that the order in 0.P. 11 of 1972 was not a con- sent order. Counsel also submitted that although the appellant filed an objection to the application of the Board to set aside the award, · that objection was withdrawn whe.n the respondent sought to file an affidavit in rejoinder to that objection, and the effect of the with- drawal of the objec.tion by the appellant was that the averment in the application filed by the Board to set aside· the award that the order in O.P. 11 of 1972 was not passed on the basis of consent, stood uncontradicted.
As we already said, paragraph S of the order in 0.PI. 11 of 1972 leaves no room for doubt that it was a consent order. The Board made no endeavour to have that order vacated by filing a review, if the statement in that order that it was passed on the basis of consent proceeded from a mistake of the court. On the other hand, we find that the Board participated in the proceedings before the umpire without any demur to his jurisdiction.
The only inference from this conduct on the part of the Board is that it had not objection to the order revoking the authority of the arbitrators. Therefore,. by acqW,.. scence tlie Board was precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of the umpire.
(1975] 2 $.C.R. "If the parties to the reference either agree before hand to the method of appointment, or afterwards acquiesce in the appointment made, with full knowledge of all the circum- stances, they will be precluded from objecti)lg to such ap- pointment as invalidating subsequent proceedings.
Attend- ing and taking part in fhe proceedings with full knowledge of the revelant fact will amount to such acquiesence" (see Rusesell on Arbitration", 17th ed., p. -215). In Cbowdhri Murtaza Rossin v. Mussumat Bibi Bacl1111111issaC) the Privy ·council said :
On the whole, therefore, their Lordships think that that appellant, having a clear knowledge of the circum- stances on whiCh he might have found~ an objection to the arbitrators proceeding to make their . award, did submit
to the arbitration going on; that he allowed the arbitrators to deal with the case as it stood befor·e them, taking his chance of the decision being more or less favourable to himself; and that it is too late for him, after the award has been made, and on the application to file the award, to insist on this objection to the filing of the award."
The High Court said that acquiesce-nee of the Board by participating. in the proceeding before the umpire as sole arbitrator would not con- fer jurisdiction as there was inherent lack of jurisdiction in that the order in O.P. 11 of 1972 was bad in law and that it did not clothe the umpire with any jurisdiction.
We are of the view that even as- suming that the order in O.P. 11_ of 1972 was not passed ~n consent, the umpire had power to pass the award. , As we said, the umpire could have entered upon th~ reference under rule 4 of the First Sche- dule when the arbitrators failed to make the award within the extended time.
Neither the fact that the umpire want·ed an order from the court to enter upon the reference nor the fact that an application was made by the Board on 5-2-1972 to extend the time for the arbi- trators. to make the award would denude the umpire of his jurisdic- tion to enter upon the reference and pass an award under ruk 4 d the First Schedule.
Therefore, when the Board without demur parti- cipated in the proceedings before the umpire and took the chance of an award in its favour, it cannot turn round and say that the umpir1~ had no inherent jurisdiction and therefore its participation in the pre- cedings before the umpire is of no avail.
The fact that the umpir1~ did not purport to act in the exercise of his jurisdiction under rule 4 of the First Schedule but under the order of the Court, would not make any difference when we are dealing with the question whether he had inherent jurisdiction. As the umpire became clothed with jurisdiction when the extended period for making the award by arbi- trators expired, it cannot be said that he had no inherent jurisdiction. As we said, neither the fact that the wnpire expressed his unwilling· ness to enter 11pon the reference without an order of the court no1r (I) 3 I.A. 209 at 220.
c c N. CHELLAPPAN v. KERALA ELECT. BOARD (Mathew, J~) 819· the fact that an application to extend the period for making the award by the arbitrators long after the expiry of the period for making the award had the effect of depriving him of his jurisdiction under rule 4 of the First Schedule.
The High Court was, therefore, clearly wrong in thinking that acquiescence did not preclude the Board from challenging the jurisdiction of the umpire as sole arbitrator. We do not find any substan\:e in the contention of the BQard that the applica- tion for setting aside the award was not posted for evidence as nor- -mally such an application should be disposed of on the basis of affi- davits;
We do notthink that there was any exceptional circumstance in this .:ase so that the court should have allowed th·e Board to ad- duce other evidence (see s. 33 oCthe Arbitration Act).
The next question for consideration is whether the High Court was right in its view. that the claim· of the appellant in respect of tile two matters dealt with by it was validly allowed by the umpire. The terins. of the agreement for reference to arbitration be bet- ween th·e appellant and the Board provided :
"It is agreed that the Contract Agreement No. 15/CEC/67 /6& stands terminated by ·letter No. C2F.359/66, dated 15-11-1968 of the Chief Engineer, Civil. The Contractor agrees to withdraw the
Suit No. O.S. 38/1970 filed in the Badagara Sub-Court by him. It is agreed that there is no other. question of dispute or difference arising for settlement except those specifically detailed below in res- pect of the above contract.
All other questions or claims of eontractor, if any, whether exist- ing now or if arising from findings in the award under this reference or during arbitration proceedings or otherwise are hereby withdrawn and are deemed to be abandoned.
Points of Reference 1. Regarding the first contract, i.e. Agreement No. CEC/4/64-65. Whether the claim to . the sum 'reserved by the contractor to be enforced' in his letter dated 1-7-1967 to the Chairman, or any other lesser sum, is tenable and if so, whether the same is recoverable from the Board.
Regarding the second contract, Agreement No. 15CEC/67-68, dated 15-7-1967. (a) What is the sum still payable for the work under the said Agree~ent and Departmental Instructions. (b) What is the sum payable to the Board in respect of
supplies and/or services rendered to the Contr11ctor by the Board in re.spect of the Contract. ( c) What is the price payable to the Contractor for such of the materials at site of Contract as were taken by
the Board. [1975) 2 s.C.R. ( d) What are the claims of the Board agaiqst the Con- tractor in respect of and/ or under the provisions of the _said Agreement." The contention of the Board before the High Court was that the claim reserved by the appellant by his letter dated 1-7-1967 to 1the Chairman had not been agreed to be reserved for adjudication by Jthe Board but bad been rejected by it definitely and unequivocally by the letters prior to 1967, that the appellant's letter of 1-7-1967 had not been incorporated in the contract and therefore the claim referred under point 1 had been barred by limitation.
The gist of the correspondence evidel).ced by the letters which passed between the parties would show that while the Board was . insisting that the appellant's claim for rain damage flood damage and power failure bad all been rejected and could no longer be re-agitated, and that the second contract should be executed without any reference to these, !he appellant was insisting on his claims under these heads being reserved for adjudication in such ways as may be open to him under law.
Counsel for the Board contended that there was no· thing to show that the Board agreed to the reservation of these ·claims or that it had acknowledged its liability in respect of these claims, and that, without considering these aspects and examining the relevant correspondence and documents, the umpire found that the claims had been substantiated and awarded a sum of about Rs. 5 lakhs to the appellant in respect of these cl~ms. In other words, the contention was that the umpire should have examined the genuineness of the claims and considered whether the claims had been rejected by the Board and if so when, anct whether at any subsequent stage, the claims had b¢en kept alive by any acknowledgement by the Board, or in any ot~er manner known to law and in so far as the umpire did not address hjmself at all to the plea of limitation, the award was vitiated by an error of Jaw apparent on the face of the record. The High Court did not make any pronouncement upon this qu1:s- tion in view of the fact that it r~mitted the whole case to the arbitra- ·tors for passing a fresh award by its order. We do not think that there is any substance in the contention of the Board. In the award, the umpire bas referred to the claims under this head and the argu- ments of the Board for disallowing the claim and then awarded the amount without expressly adverti~ to or deciding the question of limitation. From the findings of the umpire under this head it is not seen that these claims were barred by limitation. No mistake of law appears on the face of the award.
Tjle umpire. as sole arbitra- tor was not bound to give a reasoned award and if in passing the awa~d he mak,e~ ~ mistake of law or of f_act, that is no ground for chal- leng1~g the v~!id1ty of the award .. It .1s only when a proposition of law 1.s stated m the award and which ts the· basis of the award, and that is erroneous, can the
award be set aside or remitted on the ;ground of error of ~aw apparent on the face of the record, "Where an_ arbitrator makes a mistake either in law or in fact in determining the matters referred, but such mistake c
c N. CHELLAPPAN v. KERALA ELECT. BOARD (Mathew, I.) 8 21 does not appear on the face of the award, the award is good notwithstanding the mistake, and will not be remitted or set aside.
The general rule is that, as the parties choose their own arbitrator to be the judge in the disputes between them, they cannot, when the award is good on its face, object to -his decision, either upon the l!l.F or the facts." (see "Russell on Arbitration'', 17th ed. p. 322).
An error of law ·on the face of the award means that you can find in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto, as, for instance, a note append·ed by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his judgment, some legal propositiOJJ. which is the basis of the award and which you can then say is erroneous
(see Lord Dunedin in Champsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balco Co.(1'). In Union oj India v. Bungu Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd.(2); this Court adopted the pro- position laid down by tpe Privy Council and applied it.
The Court has no jurisdiction to investigate into the merits of the case and to examine the documentary and oral eviden~ on the record for the purpose of finding out, whether or not the arbitrator has committed_ an error of law.
The only other point which remains for consideration is whether the direction in the award to return the security deposit of Rs._ 1,81,00Q to the appellant can be said to be a matter arising out
of the second contract and referred to arbitration, under point 2(a) or point 2 ( d) of the points of reference. Counsel for the appellant contended that the security, though given in connection with the first contract, was transferred to and treated as part ·of. the second ~ontract and, therefore, the return of the said amount to the appellant which had been directed by the umpire was covered by point 2(a) or 2(d) of the reference . . On the other hand, it was contended for the Bqard that point 2(a) of the reference related only to the sum still payable for the work done under the second contract and therefore the return of the security amount would_ not be covered by p_oint 2(g). And, as re- gards point 2 ( d), the contention of the Board was that it related to the claims of the Board against the respondent in respect pf or under the agreement.
The Board, therefore, contended that the matter was not referred to the arbitrators either under point 2(a) or 2(d). The High Court did not express any final opinion on this ques- tion. No doubt, the agreement to refer makes it clear that there' (1) [1923] A. C .480.
m [1967] 1 S.C.R. ~.24 were no other questions of dispute or difference arising for S·~ttlement except those which were specifically detailed in the agreem~nt and it was also stated in the agreement that all other questions and claims of the respo111dent were withdrawn and should be deemed to be aban- doned. Whether the return of the security amount would fall under point 2(c) would depend upon the answer to the question whether it is. a claim of the Board. The question whether the Board can re- tain the amount under the contract is a claim of the Board falling within point 2 ( d).
We allow the appeal and set aside th~ judgment of the High Court, ·but, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. '.P.H.P. Appeal allowed.