The Odisha High Court passed an Order on 10.05.2022. In the case of Jayaram Panda v. Project Director, M/s. National Highway Authority of India and others,( ARB.A. No. 58 of 2018.) The High Court of Orissa has held that an unreasoned arbitral award would be against the public policy. The Court set aside the award as the arbitrator failed to give any reasons for reaching the conclusion in the award. The Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha has held that an award bereft of reasons, goes against the mandate of the Act and therefore is against the public policy.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant challenged the order of the court below on the ground that it has failed to appreciate that the arbitrator has failed to assign reasons regarding the quantum of compensation to be paid to his client on the acquisition by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), therefore, the award is liable to be set aside. The appellant contended that there were two technical evaluations done to determine the compensation payable to it and the second evaluation had recommended a higher compensation. The arbitral tribunal has not given any reasons as to why it rejected the latter evaluation. The appellant further contended that the General Manager/ Respondent No.4 had also signed the technical report with a dissent note and recommended a higher compensation. The respondent argued that the comments to the recommendation of the Technical Committee were personal opinion of the General Manager, not approved by the State. The arbitrator was correct in accepting the reassessed recommendation of the technical committee; therefore, no interference is required.
The Court declares that the controversy before the referee is not linked to the dispute between the Technical Committee (State) and the Director General (NHAI), but to determine the appeal for the highest compensation. Rice field. Note that reevaluation remuneration will be resolved in a dispute between the State and the NHAI. The court determined that the referee had not given the reason to accept the reevaluation of the technical committee and gave the same amount. Subsection (3) of article 31 stipulates that the arbitration decision indicates the reason and ordered that the parties did not accept to gain prayer for no reason, so the referees were retained to assign reasons to “accept.” I judged that it was finished. The court determined that the unreasonable arbitration decision was contrary to public policy. The court established a decision aside because the referee did not give the reasons for the conclusion to power. The court also determined the reasons given by the court, judging a problem based on article 34 of the A&C law. The task is not similar to the first complaint during the request.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY KUNMUN DAS.