Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Learned counsel for petitioner/contractor made submissions (assailing the impugned award), summation of which is as follows:

a) Impugned award suffers from the vice of irrationality / perversity as in one breath it says that lis is arbitrable notwithstanding the Architect's report, in the same breath it also says that Architect's report is final.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

b) The impugned award has not adhered to settled principles in not awarding pendente lite interest.

8. Summation of submissions made by learned counsel for said Trust (in response to the above contentions) is as follows:

a) The findings do not run into each other as the issue regarding Architect's report turns on whether it becomes an excepted matter qua arbitrability and the issue of interpreting the said contract and thereafter saying Architect's report is final operated in different realms.

'51...............Except the major deduction under five heads as reflected in the final certification of the architect, the final certificate relating to the work done cannot be questioned by the claimant as the decision of the architect has become final regarding the measurement, work done, rates for additional work and variation in the prior escalation.'

780. The judgment of Pratt, J. may be referred to at ILR p. 787.] erroneous.” This judgment has been consistently followed in India to test awards under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.'

23. At the risk of over simplification, Hodgkinson principle from reductionist's perspective means that AT is the best Judge of the quantity and quality of evidence before it, but the caveat is Hodgkinson principle is not without exceptions and illustratively speaking, some exceptions are when vital evidence is not looked into, when evidence received behind the back of one of the parties is looked into etc., . It is nobody's case that the OP on hand falls under any of the exceptions to Hodgkinson https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ principle. To put the caveat differently it is not a absolute principle which neither needs any qualification nor admits of any exception. Be that as it may, a plea of patent illegality has to be tested without going into the realm of erroneous application of law or re-appreciation of evidence. The portions in two paragraphs from the findings of the AT in the impugned award extracted and reproduced supra, in the considered view of this Court, do not run into each other. The reason is, AT has come to the conclusion that the lis does not fall under excepted matter qua arbitrability owing to Architect's report. Merely because the lis does not fall under excepted matter, it does not mean that the AT cannot by interpreting terms of said contract take the view that the Architect's report is final. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for said Trust, one of the two witnesses, who deposed on behalf of said Trust, is Architect's agent. AT also had the benefit of Architect's report as documentary evidence in this regard. Therefore, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence or in other words, on an appreciation of evidence, AT has come to the conclusion that out of the 7 heads of deductions made by said Trust, two heads are untenable and not valid. Five heads of deductions have been upheld. This by itself would demonstrate that there has been appreciation of evidence. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/