Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. If we apply the well recognized principle, that as and when the Arbitrator has exceeded the scope of the subject-matter of Arbitration Agreement, the Award cannot be sustained, on the facts of the present case, we find that so far as the question of fault in design is concerned, the same was kept out of the scope of Arbitration in terms of Clause 62(i). The question of fault in design was raised as a dispute by A.F.C.O.N.S, to claim the withheld payments. The contention that it was the defence raised by A.F.C.O.N.S., against the stand of K.P.T., and therefore, it could be considered by the Umpire while passing the Award does not appear to be correct and tenable proposition in our view for the simple reason that what cannot be done directly cannot be done in an indirect manner, and therefore, when the question of defect in design could not be a subject-matter for arbitration at all, that could not be made a ground so as to reject the claim of K.P.T., and accept the claim of A.F.C.O.N.S., so as to pass an Award in favour of A.F.C.O.N.S., and against the K.P.T. In our considered opinion the Umpire has clearly and certainly exceeded the scope of the subject-matter of Arbitration Agreement in the facts of the present case. We, therefore, find that the Award passed by the Umpire, as has been made the rule of the Court, cannot be sustained in the eye of law, and the matter, therefore, deserves to be remanded back to the Umpire to re-consider the Reference de novo without taking into consideration the A.F.C.O.N.S.'s, plea with regard to the fault in design, in terms of the Contract and in the light of the observations made in this order as above and we order accordingly.