Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited Vs. C. Rajasekhar Rao
of inference and argument it might be demonstrated that the arbitrator had committed some mistake in arriving at his conclusion. The law on this point is well settled. The Judicial Committee in Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. (LR (1922-23) 50 IA 324) clarified that an error of law on the fact of the award means, that one could find in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto, as for instance a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons that for his judgment, some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which one could then say was erroneous. It did not mean that if in a narrative a reference was made to a contention of one party, that opened the door to seeing first what that contention was, and then going to the contract on which the parties rights depended to see if that contention was sound. It has been further reiterated by this Court in the aforesaid decision relying on Champsey Bhara and Company (LR (1922-23) 50 IA 324), that in dealing with an application to set aside an award the court had not to consider whether the view of the arbitrator on the evidence was justified. The arbitrators adjudication was generally considered binding between the parts, for he was the tribunal selected by the parties and the power of the court to set aside the award was restricted to cases set out in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. It is not open to the court to speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator, as to what impelled the arbitrator to arrive at his conclusion. It is not open to the court to attempt to probe the mental process by which the arbitrator had reached his conclusion where it is not disclosed by the terms of his award. In this case this is not a speaking award. The learned Umpire has not spoken his mind indicating why he has done what he has done; he has narrated only how he came to make the award. 4. Counsel drew our attention to page 26 of the award where different items have been set out and referred to page 30 of the award where the arbitrator noted as under. The respondent demurs, to this and its officers have denied having received them in their affidavits and in their oral testimony. No officer of the post office from which the letter was sent by registered post or of the post office through which delivery of that registered letter was effected to the addressee has been summoned to establish that these letters did not emanate from their post offices or that the post office seals affixed on the "certificates of posting" and "postal acknowledgments" were not of those post offices which delivered them to HSCL or that they were forged or fraudulent, nor was anything produced to show that these were not posted or registered from the post offices from which they emanated. 5. Counsel further drew our attention to the statement at page 33 of the award about the losses. Mr. Markandeya contended that these were the reasons given by the learned Umpire. We are unable to accept. What the learned Umpire did not the aforesaid paragraphs was to narrate the facts and state the history and state of pleadings. The Umpire in the operative part of the award observed as under. Whereas I perused and considered the entire record with great care including the record of affidavits, the oral evidence tendered before me, the statement of claim dated October 12, 1983; the counter-statement dated October 27/31, 1983 and the rejoinder of the claimant and considered the documents filed in support of the case of the respective parties as also the written and oral submissions made before me by counsel for the parties in support of their respective cases of the parties for which they have appeared; and having duly considered the dispute in its varied aspects placed before me by the parties and in the light of the entire material in the case as above narratedI, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, the Umpire, nominated by the Supreme Court of India as aforesaid, and having jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in the claims and counter-claims relating to Work Orders Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 concerning the Glass Factory and Works Orders Nos. 9 and 10 concerning the Glass Factory and the contention of the claimant and the respondent in respect of the said claims and counter-claims: "(1) I do hereby make any award, order and direct that the respondent do pay to the claimant a sum of Rs. 31, 740.30, (Rupees thirty-one thousand seven hundred and forty and thirty paise) only in full satisfaction of its liability for the claim made by the claimant-contractor against the respondent with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of award.(2) I further award and direct that the counter-claims made by the respondent do stand dismissed.(3) I further award and direct that the parties do bear their respective costs incidental to these proceedings.(4) I further direct that the amounts paid by the parties towards the hearing fees etc., from time to time in respect of the several hearings of these arbitration proceedings and the amount in deposit be appropriated and has/have accordingly been appropriated towards the remuneration of the Umpire." 6. Therefore, in his award as a whole no reasons have been given for the purpose of making the award. In other words, it is not a speaking award at all. The award did not speak as to why the Umpire has awarded as he did. I does not speak the mind of the Umpire. It mentions the events leading to the making of the award. In the award, there is no legal proposition which is unsustainable or improper. In that view of the matter the challenge to the award cannot be accepted.
0[ds]In view of the policy of law that the arbitration proceedings should not be unduly prolonged and in view of the fact that the parties have been taking willing part in the proceedings before the arbitrator without a demur and had all along been willing to extend time, this will be a fit case, in our opinion, for the extension of time. We accordingly extend the time for giving the award and the award will be deemed to have been given in time. In this case, it appears that under Section 28 and in the light of Section 3 of the First Schedule the parties are allowed to extend the time.Counsel drew our attention to page 26 of the award where different items have been set out and referred to page 30 of the award where the arbitrator noted asrespondent demurs, to this and its officers have denied having received them in their affidavits and in their oral testimony. No officer of the post office from which the letter was sent by registered post or of the post office through which delivery of that registered letter was effected to the addressee has been summoned to establish that these letters did not emanate from their post offices or that the post office seals affixed on the "certificates of posting" and "postal acknowledgments" were not of those post offices which delivered them to HSCL or that they were forged or fraudulent, nor was anything produced to show that these were not posted or registered from the post offices from which theyCounsel further drew our attention to the statement at page 33 of the award about the losses. Mr. Markandeya contended that these were the reasons given by the learned Umpire. We are unable to accept. What the learned Umpire did not the aforesaid paragraphs was to narrate the facts and state the history and state of pleadings. The Umpire in the operative part of the award observed asI perused and considered the entire record with great care including the record of affidavits, the oral evidence tendered before me, the statement of claim dated October 12, 1983; the counter-statement dated October 27/31, 1983 and the rejoinder of the claimant and considered the documents filed in support of the case of the respective parties as also the written and oral submissions made before me by counsel for the parties in support of their respective cases of the parties for which they have appeared; and having duly considered the dispute in its varied aspects placed before me by the parties and in the light of the entire material in the case as above narratedI, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, the Umpire, nominated by the Supreme Court of India as aforesaid, and having jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in the claims and counter-claims relating to Work Orders Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 concerning the Glass Factory and Works Orders Nos. 9 and 10 concerning the Glass Factory and the contention of the claimant and the respondent in respect of the said claims andI do hereby make any award, order and direct that the respondent do pay to the claimant a sum of Rs. 31, 740.30, (Rupees thirty-one thousand seven hundred and forty and thirty paise) only in full satisfaction of its liability for the claim made by the claimant-contractor against the respondent with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date ofI further award and direct that the counter-claims made by the respondent do standI further award and direct that the parties do bear their respective costs incidental to theseI further direct that the amounts paid by the parties towards the hearing fees etc., from time to time in respect of the several hearings of these arbitration proceedings and the amount in deposit be appropriated and has/have accordingly been appropriated towards the remuneration of theTherefore, in his award as a whole no reasons have been given for the purpose of making the award. In other words, it is not a speaking award at all. The award did not speak as to why the Umpire has awarded as he did. I does not speak the mind of the Umpire. It mentions the events leading to the making of the award. In the award, there is no legal proposition which is unsustainable or improper. In that view of the matter the challenge to the award cannot be accepted
### Instruction:
Make a prediction on the court's ruling (acceptance (1) or rejection (0) of the petition), and then dissect the proceeding to provide a detailed explanation using key textual passages.

### Input:
of inference and argument it might be demonstrated that the arbitrator had committed some mistake in arriving at his conclusion. The law on this point is well settled. The Judicial Committee in Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. (LR (1922-23) 50 IA 324) clarified that an error of law on the fact of the award means, that one could find in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto, as for instance a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons that for his judgment, some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which one could then say was erroneous. It did not mean that if in a narrative a reference was made to a contention of one party, that opened the door to seeing first what that contention was, and then going to the contract on which the parties rights depended to see if that contention was sound. It has been further reiterated by this Court in the aforesaid decision relying on Champsey Bhara and Company (LR (1922-23) 50 IA 324), that in dealing with an application to set aside an award the court had not to consider whether the view of the arbitrator on the evidence was justified. The arbitrators adjudication was generally considered binding between the parts, for he was the tribunal selected by the parties and the power of the court to set aside the award was restricted to cases set out in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. It is not open to the court to speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator, as to what impelled the arbitrator to arrive at his conclusion. It is not open to the court to attempt to probe the mental process by which the arbitrator had reached his conclusion where it is not disclosed by the terms of his award. In this case this is not a speaking award. The learned Umpire has not spoken his mind indicating why he has done what he has done; he has narrated only how he came to make the award. 4. Counsel drew our attention to page 26 of the award where different items have been set out and referred to page 30 of the award where the arbitrator noted as under. The respondent demurs, to this and its officers have denied having received them in their affidavits and in their oral testimony. No officer of the post office from which the letter was sent by registered post or of the post office through which delivery of that registered letter was effected to the addressee has been summoned to establish that these letters did not emanate from their post offices or that the post office seals affixed on the "certificates of posting" and "postal acknowledgments" were not of those post offices which delivered them to HSCL or that they were forged or fraudulent, nor was anything produced to show that these were not posted or registered from the post offices from which they emanated. 5. Counsel further drew our attention to the statement at page 33 of the award about the losses. Mr. Markandeya contended that these were the reasons given by the learned Umpire. We are unable to accept. What the learned Umpire did not the aforesaid paragraphs was to narrate the facts and state the history and state of pleadings. The Umpire in the operative part of the award observed as under. Whereas I perused and considered the entire record with great care including the record of affidavits, the oral evidence tendered before me, the statement of claim dated October 12, 1983; the counter-statement dated October 27/31, 1983 and the rejoinder of the claimant and considered the documents filed in support of the case of the respective parties as also the written and oral submissions made before me by counsel for the parties in support of their respective cases of the parties for which they have appeared; and having duly considered the dispute in its varied aspects placed before me by the parties and in the light of the entire material in the case as above narratedI, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, the Umpire, nominated by the Supreme Court of India as aforesaid, and having jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in the claims and counter-claims relating to Work Orders Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 concerning the Glass Factory and Works Orders Nos. 9 and 10 concerning the Glass Factory and the contention of the claimant and the respondent in respect of the said claims and counter-claims: "(1) I do hereby make any award, order and direct that the respondent do pay to the claimant a sum of Rs. 31, 740.30, (Rupees thirty-one thousand seven hundred and forty and thirty paise) only in full satisfaction of its liability for the claim made by the claimant-contractor against the respondent with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of award.(2) I further award and direct that the counter-claims made by the respondent do stand dismissed.(3) I further award and direct that the parties do bear their respective costs incidental to these proceedings.(4) I further direct that the amounts paid by the parties towards the hearing fees etc., from time to time in respect of the several hearings of these arbitration proceedings and the amount in deposit be appropriated and has/have accordingly been appropriated towards the remuneration of the Umpire." 6. Therefore, in his award as a whole no reasons have been given for the purpose of making the award. In other words, it is not a speaking award at all. The award did not speak as to why the Umpire has awarded as he did. I does not speak the mind of the Umpire. It mentions the events leading to the making of the award. In the award, there is no legal proposition which is unsustainable or improper. In that view of the matter the challenge to the award cannot be accepted.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
In view of the policy of law that the arbitration proceedings should not be unduly prolonged and in view of the fact that the parties have been taking willing part in the proceedings before the arbitrator without a demur and had all along been willing to extend time, this will be a fit case, in our opinion, for the extension of time. We accordingly extend the time for giving the award and the award will be deemed to have been given in time. In this case, it appears that under Section 28 and in the light of Section 3 of the First Schedule the parties are allowed to extend the time.Counsel drew our attention to page 26 of the award where different items have been set out and referred to page 30 of the award where the arbitrator noted asrespondent demurs, to this and its officers have denied having received them in their affidavits and in their oral testimony. No officer of the post office from which the letter was sent by registered post or of the post office through which delivery of that registered letter was effected to the addressee has been summoned to establish that these letters did not emanate from their post offices or that the post office seals affixed on the "certificates of posting" and "postal acknowledgments" were not of those post offices which delivered them to HSCL or that they were forged or fraudulent, nor was anything produced to show that these were not posted or registered from the post offices from which theyCounsel further drew our attention to the statement at page 33 of the award about the losses. Mr. Markandeya contended that these were the reasons given by the learned Umpire. We are unable to accept. What the learned Umpire did not the aforesaid paragraphs was to narrate the facts and state the history and state of pleadings. The Umpire in the operative part of the award observed asI perused and considered the entire record with great care including the record of affidavits, the oral evidence tendered before me, the statement of claim dated October 12, 1983; the counter-statement dated October 27/31, 1983 and the rejoinder of the claimant and considered the documents filed in support of the case of the respective parties as also the written and oral submissions made before me by counsel for the parties in support of their respective cases of the parties for which they have appeared; and having duly considered the dispute in its varied aspects placed before me by the parties and in the light of the entire material in the case as above narratedI, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, the Umpire, nominated by the Supreme Court of India as aforesaid, and having jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in the claims and counter-claims relating to Work Orders Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 concerning the Glass Factory and Works Orders Nos. 9 and 10 concerning the Glass Factory and the contention of the claimant and the respondent in respect of the said claims andI do hereby make any award, order and direct that the respondent do pay to the claimant a sum of Rs. 31, 740.30, (Rupees thirty-one thousand seven hundred and forty and thirty paise) only in full satisfaction of its liability for the claim made by the claimant-contractor against the respondent with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date ofI further award and direct that the counter-claims made by the respondent do standI further award and direct that the parties do bear their respective costs incidental to theseI further direct that the amounts paid by the parties towards the hearing fees etc., from time to time in respect of the several hearings of these arbitration proceedings and the amount in deposit be appropriated and has/have accordingly been appropriated towards the remuneration of theTherefore, in his award as a whole no reasons have been given for the purpose of making the award. In other words, it is not a speaking award at all. The award did not speak as to why the Umpire has awarded as he did. I does not speak the mind of the Umpire. It mentions the events leading to the making of the award. In the award, there is no legal proposition which is unsustainable or improper. In that view of the matter the challenge to the award cannot be accepted
