Full Judgment
S.N. Kapoor, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner. It appears that only Surinder Kumar Pruthi filed objection to the award within the stipulated time of 30 days. The objector claims that the claimant manipulated and misused the blank papers. The objector opted not to appear before the learned arbitrator despite notices dated 17th February 1996, 2nd March 1996 and 23rd March 1996. However, Surinder Kumar Pruthi sent letter dated 24th February 1996 received by the Arbitrator on 24th May 1996. The said letter indicates that certain payments had been made. Excepting the payment of Rs.2,800/- all the payments had been accounted for in the ledger. The appellant failed to appear before the learned Arbitrator to prove the payment of Rs.2,800/- on 11th November 1994. In so far as non-encashment of cheque No. 825914 dated 27th December 1994 for a sum of Rs.65,000/- is concerned, the learned Arbitrator considered it in the light of the ledger of the claimant and certificate dated 14th May 1997 placed on record about encashment of the said cheque on 17th April 1995. Shri Surender Kumar Pruthi executed promissory note on 27th December 1994 along with guarantors. The fact that the appellant chose not to appear before the learned Arbitrator itself indicated that the petitioner was interested to forestall the arbitration proceedings.
2. The learned trial court by its order dated 29th September 1997 rejected the contention of the appellant and made the award rule of the court.
3. An appeal was filed against that order and that was also dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence. It is settled position that the mixed questions relating to facts and law are in exclusive domain of the arbitrator and award stemming from the arbitration proceedings is binding. It is open to the arbitrator to decide on the rival contentions of the parties to the issue as to limitation and if an arbitrator makes the mistake either in law or in fact and if such mistake does not appear on the face of the award, the award will not be bad notwithstanding any mistake (See Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika Vs . M/s Narain Das Haribansh), : [1970]2SCR28 ). In B.V. Radha Krishna Vs . Sponge Iron India Ltd., : [1997]2SCR707 , Supreme Court has taken view that the Court does not sit in appeal over the award and review the reasons. The Court can set aside the award only if it is apparent from the award that there is no evidence to support the conclusions or if the award is based upon any legal proposition which is erroneous. Similar view was taken in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Indian Carbon Ltd., 1988 8 ALR 394. Supreme Court has reiterated in Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerae Board Vs . Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. & Anr., : [1989]1SCR318 that it will not be open for this court to evaluate the thought process of the Arbitrator and to reappraise the findings which have been arrived at after due consideration of the evidence before the arbitrator/arbitration tribunal.
5. In view of the foregoing and further the fact that only the appellants were to blame themselves for not submitting the statement of objections to the claim made by the claimant before the learned Arbitrator and the award, I do not find any force in this appeal and dismiss the same. Trial court record be sent back and file be consigned.