The decided cases of this Court demonstrate that this Court has consistently taken the view that scope of interference in a non-speaking award is extremely limited. The Court cannot probe into the mental process of the arbitrator. The court should endeavour to support a non-speaking arbitration award provided it adhered to the parties agreement and was not invalidated due to arbitrato's misconduct.
16. Russell on Arbitration 19th Edition at Pages 110-111 described the entire genesis of arbitration as under:—
“An arbitrator is neither more or less than a private judge of a private court (called an arbitral tribunal) who gives a private judgment (called an award). He is a judge in that a dispute is submitted to him; he is not a mere investigator but a person before whom material is placed by the parties, being either or both of evidence and submissions; he gives a decision in accordance with his duty to hold the scales fairly between the disputants in accordance with some recognized system of law and rules of natural justice. He is private in so far as (1) he is chosen and paid by the disputants (2) he does not sit in public (3) he acts in accordance with privately chosen procedure so far as that is not repugnant to public policy (4) so far as the law allows he is set up to the exclusion of the State Courts (5) his authority and powers are only whatsoever he is given by the disputants agreement (6) the effectiveness of his powers derives wholly from the private law of contract and accordingly the nature and exercise of those powers must not be contrary to the proper law of the contract or the public policy of England bearing in mind that the paramount public policy is that freedom of contract is not lightly to be inferred with.”
Whatever has been mentioned by Russell in this paragraph is equally true for Indian Arbitrators.
17. Arbitration is a mechanism or a method of resolution of disputes that unlike court takes place in private, pursuant to agreement between the parties. The parties agree to be bound by the decision rendered by a chosen arbitrator after giving hearing. The endeavour of the court should be to honour and support the award as far as possible.”
22. It clearly emerge from the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that scope of interference is extremely limited in non speaking award and it is not open to Court to probe mental process of the arbitrator. The Court should endeavour to support a non-speaking arbitration award and it is not open to court to probe mental process of the arbitrator where he has not provided the reasoning for his decision. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited hereinabove, has categorically held that arbitrator is under no obligation to give reasons in support of the decision reached by him, unless the arbitration agreement or deed of settlement so required. In the instant case, learned counsel representing the petitioners was unable to point out conditions, if any, contained in the agreement making it incumbent upon the arbitrator to assign reasons in support of his/her findings.
In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla
(Before Sandeep Sharma, J.)
Praveen Diwan & others
v.
Himachal Pradesh Agro Industries Corporation Limited .
Arb. Case No. 11 of 2009
Decided on July 24, 2017,
Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine HP 1006
