Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The court, below went on to say that it was a case of a typographical mistake, and the parties had clearly known that it is a case of Rs. 6 per hundred cubic metres, for every increase of Rs. 15 per cubic metre but the arbitrator has not considered this aspect. Hence he held that it is a case of non-application of mind of the arbitrator, which invalidates the award.

17. In paragraph 6 of the impugned order it has been observed that the arbitrator did not call for the relevant documents e.g., stock register of calcium carbide month wise maintained by the claimant for the period 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1997 with average cost of procurement, documents showing sale of D.A. gases to different purchasers during the period month wise, copies of purchase orders placed on claimant by other purchasers, I.T.C.C. for the period 1986-87, etc. The court below has observed that it is surprising that the Company dealing with supplies and making big claims as in this case would not maintain record for stock of calcium carbide for the period in question and other registers with regard to sale of D.A. gases to different purchasers and copies of purchase orders placed on it. It was observed that the claimant is a registered Company and deals in several gases and it is inconceivable that it did not maintain registers. The court below has held that the documents which were required to be produced were material and it was inconceivable that the claimant had not maintained the records. The Court held that the documents were necessary for reaching any just conclusion in respect of enhancement of price and it is inconceivable that the Chartered Accountant would issue a certificate without seeing the documents. Hence the certificate of the Chartered Accountant could not be relied upon. Non-production of such documents was a legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator."