# UNION OF INDIA v. JAi NARAIN MISRA

- **Citation:** [1969] 2 S.C.R. 588
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-10-31
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1966
- **Bench:** S. M. SrKRI, R. S. Bachawat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-v-jai-narain-misra-4570
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Arbitration-Award when vague and uncertain-Part of a1vard based
on mistake may be struck out if separable.
The respondent, a building contractor, entered into a contract with the
Government of India for the constn1ction of certain flats.
On disputes
'" arising, they \Vere referre_d to an arbitrator.
The
arbitrator
made
an
award and directed certain sums to be paid by the Union of India to the
respondent.
Rupees twenty-two thousand two hundred and ninety two,
annas five were to be paid as the amount due: to tbe respondent as calculated by the Union of India.
Rupees six thousand were to be paid as the
amount of se,curity deposit made by the respondent with the Union of
India.
The third item was mentioned as Rupees seventy nine thousand
three hundred and thirty nine.
The total amount payable was mentioned
as Rupees one lakh seven thousand six hundred and thirty one, annas five.
The respondent made an application for modifying the award and for remitting it to the arbitraior for reconsideration. The Second Civil Judge,
Kanpur dismissed the objections and pronounced judgment according to
the. award. The appellant filed an appeal against the order under s. 39
of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The High Court allowed the appeal and
set aside the award on. the ground that it was vague and uncertain.
According to the High Court it was not clear why the arbitrator awarded
the first item of Rs. 22,292/5/- ·and the third item of Rs. 79,339/- separately.
Since the arbitrator found only the first item of Rs. 22,922/5 /-
to be due to the respondent, the High Court did not find it clear whether
he intended also to award the 3rd item of Rs. 79,339/- to the respondent.
As the dispute related to 29 items of claims and counter-claims the arbitrator, according to High Court, should have made an ·award in respect of
a11 the items separately or in combination or should ·have made a lump
sum award in respect of all the items. Against the order of the High
Court the Union of India appealed to this Court with certificate.
HELD : The reasoning of the High Court could not be accepted.
(i) The award on the face of it professed to be of and concerning
all matters submitted for arbitration.
In respect of all such matters the
arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 1,07,631/6/- to the respondent.
This
amount was made of three sums separately mentioned in the award.
On
the record there was nothing to show that the award was not intelligible
to the parties. [590 G]
·
The court leans to\vards. the construction that the award is certain.
Or.
the evidence item No. 1 represented the sum admitted the sum due to the
respondent and item No. 3 represented the additional sum found by the
arbitrator to be due to him. [590 HJ
(ii) The arbitrator is not bound to give an award on each point.
He
can give his award on the whole case. An ·arbitrator may award one
sum generally i11 respect of all money claims submitted to him, unless the
submission requires him to award separately on some one or more of them.
A
B
c
D
E
F
'
G
H
..... ...
•
•
'
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
UNION OF INDIA v. J. N. MISRA (Bachawat, J.)
589
The arbitrator can lawfully make an award of a sum admitted to be due
and a lump sum in respec~ of the remaining claim .
AS the final award in favour of the respondent professed to be made
of and concerning all the matters referred to him, it must be presumed
that in making it the arbitrator had taken. into consideration all the claims
and counter claims.
The award must be held to be a final and certain
determination of all the disputes referred .. [591 C, DJ
(iii) The mention of the second item of Rupees six thousand in the
award was a mistake. This part of the award being clearly separable must
be struck out. The award of the sum of Rupees six thousand was to the
advantage of the respondent and the court could not set aside an award
at the instance of a party who had not suffered any injury. [591 F]
Mays and Anr. v. Cannel 24 Law Journal Q.B. 41, 45; Ghulam Khan
v. Mohammad Hassan I

## Text

UNION OF INDIA
v.
JAi NARAIN MISRA
October 31, 1968
(S. M. SrKRI AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.]
Arbitration-Award when vague and uncertain-Part of a1vard based
on mistake may be struck out if separable.
The respondent, a building contractor, entered into a contract with the
Government of India for the constn1ction of certain flats.
On disputes
'" arising, they \Vere referre_d to an arbitrator.
The
arbitrator
made
an
award and directed certain sums to be paid by the Union of India to the
respondent.
Rupees twenty-two thousand two hundred and ninety two,
annas five were to be paid as the amount due: to tbe respondent as calculated by the Union of India.
Rupees six thousand were to be paid as the
amount of se,curity deposit made by the respondent with the Union of
India.
The third item was mentioned as Rupees seventy nine thousand
three hundred and thirty nine.
The total amount payable was mentioned
as Rupees one lakh seven thousand six hundred and thirty one, annas five.
The respondent made an application for modifying the award and for remitting it to the arbitraior for reconsideration. The Second Civil Judge,
Kanpur dismissed the objections and pronounced judgment according to
the. award. The appellant filed an appeal against the order under s. 39
of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The High Court allowed the appeal and
set aside the award on. the ground that it was vague and uncertain.
According to the High Court it was not clear why the arbitrator awarded
the first item of Rs. 22,292/5/- ·and the third item of Rs. 79,339/- separately.
Since the arbitrator found only the first item of Rs. 22,922/5 /-
to be due to the respondent, the High Court did not find it clear whether
he intended also to award the 3rd item of Rs. 79,339/- to the respondent.
As the dispute related to 29 items of claims and counter-claims the arbitrator, according to High Court, should have made an ·award in respect of
a11 the items separately or in combination or should ·have made a lump
sum award in respect of all the items. Against the order of the High
Court the Union of India appealed to this Court with certificate.
HELD : The reasoning of the High Court could not be accepted.
(i) The award on the face of it professed to be of and concerning
all matters submitted for arbitration.
In respect of all such matters the
arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 1,07,631/6/- to the respondent.
This
amount was made of three sums separately mentioned in the award.
On
the record there was nothing to show that the award was not intelligible
to the parties. [590 G]
·
The court leans to\vards. the construction that the award is certain.
Or.
the evidence item No. 1 represented the sum admitted the sum due to the
respondent and item No. 3 represented the additional sum found by the
arbitrator to be due to him. [590 HJ
(ii) The arbitrator is not bound to give an award on each point.
He
can give his award on the whole case. An ·arbitrator may award one
sum generally i11 respect of all money claims submitted to him, unless the
submission requires him to award separately on some one or more of them.
A
B
c
D
E
F
'
G
H
..... ...
•
•
'
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
UNION OF INDIA v. J. N. MISRA (Bachawat, J.)
589
The arbitrator can lawfully make an award of a sum admitted to be due
and a lump sum in respec~ of the remaining claim .
AS the final award in favour of the respondent professed to be made
of and concerning all the matters referred to him, it must be presumed
that in making it the arbitrator had taken. into consideration all the claims
and counter claims.
The award must be held to be a final and certain
determination of all the disputes referred .. [591 C, DJ
(iii) The mention of the second item of Rupees six thousand in the
award was a mistake. This part of the award being clearly separable must
be struck out. The award of the sum of Rupees six thousand was to the
advantage of the respondent and the court could not set aside an award
at the instance of a party who had not suffered any injury. [591 F]
Mays and Anr. v. Cannel 24 Law Journal Q.B. 41, 45; Ghulam Khan
v. Mohammad Hassan I.LR. 29 Cal. 167, 186 (P.C.);
Whiteworth v.
Hulse (1866) LR. 1 Ex. 251; Harrison v. Creswick (1853) 13 C.B. 399,
Jewell v. Christie (1867) 2 C.B. 296 and Narsingh Narain Singh v.
A;odhya Prasad Singh, (1912) 15 C.L.J. 110, 113, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil Appeal No. 31 of
1966.
Appeal from the judgment aitJ.d decree dated December 5, 1962
of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal from Order No. 260
of 1952.
R. M. Mehta and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
A. K. Sen, S. V. Gupte and S. S. Shukla, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bacbawat, J. The respondent Jai Narain Misra is a building contractor. On September 2, 1944, ru: entered into a contract (No.
ES. 2 944) with the Government of India represented by the Chief
Engineer, Central Command, for the construction of additional
quarters at T.P. 2 Kanpur. The contract contained an arbitration
clause. Disputes between the parties relating to the contract were
referred to Col. H. T. Faithful. The arbitrator made his award on
May 19,, 1947. On November 15, 1947 the respondent made an
application for modifying the award and for remitting it to the
arbitrator for re-consideration. On January 5,
1948, he filed
additional objections. By his order dated May 26, 1952 the
Second Civil Judge, Kanpur, dismissed the objections and pronounced judgment according to the award. The appellant filed an
appeal against the order under s. 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
By an order dated December 5, 1962, the High Ceurt allowed the
appeal ~nd set aside the award on th;: ground that it was vague and
uncertam. The present appeal has been filed by the Union of
India on the strength of a certificate granted by the High Court.
It appears that the respondent submitted 23 items of claim to
the arbitrator. By his letter dated May 6, 1947 he added 6 more
items of claim. The Union of India made a counter-claim. The
4Sup.C.l./69-5
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 2 S.C.R.
arbitrator was thus required to decide 29 disputed items of claim
and the counter claim. The award recited that certain differences
between the parties in respect of contract No. ES. 2944 of 1944
had been referred to the arbitrator for his decision and that a final
award was being made of and concerning the matters referred to
him. The relevant part of the award was as follows :-
"I award and direct that the following sums be paid
by the respondent to the claimant.
Rupees twenty two thousand two hundred and ninety
two annas five being the amount due to the claimant as
calculated by the respondent.
(2) Rupees six thousand being the amount of secu-
. rity deposit paid by the claimant and now in possession
of the respondent.
( 3) Rupees seventy nine thousand three hundred
and thirty nine.
The total amount to be paid by the respondent to the
claimant is therefore one lakh seven thousand six hundred and thirty one annas five.
Each party to the dispute shall bear its own costs,
including the cost of the stamp duty on this award."
The High Court held that the award suffered from a patent
ambiguity for the following reasons : It was not clear why the
arbitrator awarded the first item of Rs. 22,292/ 5 and the 3rd item
of Rs. 79,339 separately. The arbitrator found only the first item
of Rs. 22,292/ 5 to be due to the respondent, it was not clear
whether he intended also to award the 3rd item of Rs. 79,339 to
the respondent. As the dispute consistr..d of 29 items of claims
and a counter-claim, the arbitrator should have made an award
in respect of all the items separately or in combination or should
have made a lump award in respect of all the items. We are unable to accept this line of reasoning.
The award on the face of it professes to be of and concerning
A
B
c
D
E
F
all matters submitted to the arbitrator. In respect of all such
matters the arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 1,07,631/5 to the
G
respondent. This amount was made up of three sums separately
mentioned in the award. It was not the case of the respondent
in the Trial Court that the award was uncertain or not intelligible.
The objection was taken for the first time before the High Court.
On the record there is nothing to show that the award was not intelligible to the parties.
H
The Court Jeans towards the construction that the award is
certain. Prima facie the award is good, and it is for the defendant
•
•
'
,.
~
•
. ...
•
•
• •
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
UNION OF INDIA v. J. N. MISRA (Bachawat, J.)
591
'C
to show that it is uncertain. Per Jervis, C.J. in Mays & Anr. v.
Cannel ('). There is no ambiguity about the first and the third
items of the award. The uncontradicted evidence of S. Choudhry,
the witness for the Government is "Item no. 1 of the award is that
which was calculated by us in the government bill. Item no. 3 is
in respect of the remaining claim of the plaintiff." Item no.
1
thus represents the sum admitted by the government to be due to
the respondent, and item no. 3 represents the additional sum
found by the arbitrator to be due to him .
The arbitrator is not bound to give an award on each point.
He can make his award on the whole case, see Ghulam Khan v.
Mohammad Hassan(").
An arbitrator may award
one
sum
generally in respect of all money claims submitted to him, unless
the submission requires him to award separately on some one or
more of them, see Whiteworth v. Hulse(").
The arbitrator can
lawfully make an award of a sum admitted to be due and a lump
sum in respect of the remaining claim. As the final award in
favour of the respondent professes to be made of and concerning
all the matters referred to him, it must be presumed that in making
it the arbitrator has taken into consideration all the claims and
counter-claims, see Harrison v. Creswick('), Jewell v. Christie(").
We hold that the award is a final and certain determination of all
the disputes referred.
The arbitrator made an award in respect of the second item
under some misapprehension. The security deposit of Rs. 6,000
had been returned to the respondent and there was no dispute
about it before the arbitrator. In the circumstances, the arbitrator had no authority to award Rs. 6,000 to the respondent on
account of the security deposit. This part of the award is clearly
separable and may be struck out. Moreover, the award of
Rs. 6,000 i~ to the advantage of the respon!.lent; and the Court
usually declmes to set aside an award at the instance of a party
w?o has no.t suffered any injury by the error, see Narsingh Narain
Singh v. A1odhya Prasad Singh('). We find also that the award
of Rs. 6,000 is now of no consequence. After the award was
made, the respondent received a sum of Rs. 1,00,594/7 in full
settl~ment of the award, presumably after giving the government
credit for the sum of Rs. 6,000 already received by him.
We therefore ho!~ that there is no ground for setting aside the
award. The award 1s not vague and/or uncertain and does ot
suffer from any other infirmity.
n
·-----·-----
(!) 24 Law Journal, Q.B. 41, 45.
(3) (1866) L.R. I Ex. 251.
(5) (1867) 2 C.B. 296,
(2) I.L.R. 29 Cal.167, 186 (P.C.).
(4) (1853) 13 C.B. 399.
(6) (1912) 15 C.L.J. 110, 113.
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 2 S.C.R.
C»
Mr. Mehta also contended that (1) the appeal before the
High Court was not maintainable under ss. 17 and 39 of the
Arbitration Act, 1940 and (2) the respondent having received
payment in full settlement of the award was estopped from challenging it. We do not find it necessary to decide these points in
view of our conclusion that the award is not liable to be set
aside.
Tue appeal is allowed with costs in this Court, and the High
Court. The order of the High Court is set aside and the order
... ,,.
and decree passed by the Second Civil Judge, Kanpur, is
restored.
G.C.
Appeal allowed.
.-
•
•