M/S. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., Pune Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Decided On : Jun-14-1995

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M/S. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., Pune Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 14(2',
			(int) 1 => 'the Arbitration Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 14',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 14',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 14',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 8 => 'the Arbitration Act',
			(int) 9 => 'the Arbitration Act',
			(int) 10 => 'the Arbitration Act',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 17 'Provided',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 14',
			(int) 13 => 'Paras 33',
			(int) 14 => 'the Arbitration Act',
			(int) 15 => 'the English Arbitration Act',
			(int) 16 => 'Section 1',
			(int) 17 => 'Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act',
			(int) 18 => 'Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act',
			(int) 19 => 'the Arbitration Act',
			(int) 20 => 'Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act',
			(int) 21 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 22 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 23 => 'Section 14',
			(int) 24 => 'Section 47',
			(int) 25 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 26 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 27 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 28 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 29 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 30 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 31 => 'Section 47',
			(int) 32 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 33 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 34 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 35 => 'Section 14'',
			(int) 36 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 37 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 38 => 'the Amendment Act',
			(int) 39 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 40 => 'Section 16 of the Act',
			(int) 41 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 42 => 'Section 14(2',
			(int) 43 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 44 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 45 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 46 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 47 => 'Act 1 of 1990',
			(int) 48 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 49 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 50 => 'Arbitration Act',
			(int) 51 => 'the Amendment Act 1 of 1990'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '11049 of 1990 2',
			(int) 1 => '1987',
			(int) 2 => '1987',
			(int) 3 => '1988',
			(int) 4 => '8-11-1988',
			(int) 5 => '1988',
			(int) 6 => '1989',
			(int) 7 => '24-11-1989',
			(int) 8 => '1990',
			(int) 9 => '1990',
			(int) 10 => '11049 of 1990',
			(int) 11 => '1990',
			(int) 12 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 13 => '1940',
			(int) 14 => '1940',
			(int) 15 => '1990',
			(int) 16 => 'thirty days',
			(int) 17 => '1426',
			(int) 18 => '37',
			(int) 19 => '1940',
			(int) 20 => 'nearly 7/8 decades',
			(int) 21 => '1958',
			(int) 22 => 'nearly a decade ago',
			(int) 23 => '1979',
			(int) 24 => '1979',
			(int) 25 => 'recent years',
			(int) 26 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 27 => '1426',
			(int) 28 => '1967]1SCR633',
			(int) 29 => '1426',
			(int) 30 => '1426',
			(int) 31 => '1991',
			(int) 32 => '1993',
			(int) 33 => '1990',
			(int) 34 => '1990 12',
			(int) 35 => '22-12-1989',
			(int) 36 => '1990',
			(int) 37 => '1990',
			(int) 38 => '11049',
			(int) 39 => '1990',
			(int) 40 => '1988',
			(int) 41 => '1990'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'second',
			(int) 1 => 'second',
			(int) 2 => 'second',
			(int) 3 => 'second',
			(int) 4 => 'second',
			(int) 5 => 'first',
			(int) 6 => 'first',
			(int) 7 => 'first',
			(int) 8 => 'first',
			(int) 9 => 'first',
			(int) 10 => 'first',
			(int) 11 => 'first',
			(int) 12 => '2nd',
			(int) 13 => 'second',
			(int) 14 => '1st',
			(int) 15 => 'third',
			(int) 16 => '1st',
			(int) 17 => 'first'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '23',
			(int) 1 => '2',
			(int) 2 => '988',
			(int) 3 => '2',
			(int) 4 => '3,05,006,/-',
			(int) 5 => '249',
			(int) 6 => '387',
			(int) 7 => '41',
			(int) 8 => '30',
			(int) 9 => '453',
			(int) 10 => '1',
			(int) 11 => '17',
			(int) 12 => '3',
			(int) 13 => '26',
			(int) 14 => '19-2-1990',
			(int) 15 => '1',
			(int) 16 => '2',
			(int) 17 => '17',
			(int) 18 => '1',
			(int) 19 => '5',
			(int) 20 => '574',
			(int) 21 => '5',
			(int) 22 => '6',
			(int) 23 => 'two',
			(int) 24 => 'one',
			(int) 25 => '38',
			(int) 26 => '5',
			(int) 27 => '1988]3SCR366',
			(int) 28 => 'two',
			(int) 29 => '19',
			(int) 30 => 'two',
			(int) 31 => 'two',
			(int) 32 => '19-2-1990',
			(int) 33 => '19',
			(int) 34 => '19-2-1990',
			(int) 35 => '19',
			(int) 36 => 'two',
			(int) 37 => '19-2-1990',
			(int) 38 => '1',
			(int) 39 => '658',
			(int) 40 => '3',
			(int) 41 => '694',
			(int) 42 => '1993]1SCR229',
			(int) 43 => '1991]3SCR904',
			(int) 44 => '1991]3SCR904',
			(int) 45 => '19-2-1990After',
			(int) 46 => '19-2-1990',
			(int) 47 => '19',
			(int) 48 => '19',
			(int) 49 => '19-2-1990Not',
			(int) 50 => '19',
			(int) 51 => '2',
			(int) 52 => '19',
			(int) 53 => 'two',
			(int) 54 => '20',
			(int) 55 => 'two',
			(int) 56 => '17',
			(int) 57 => '1990.14',
			(int) 58 => '19',
			(int) 59 => 'two',
			(int) 60 => '2'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rege',
			(int) 1 => 'Krishna Rao',
			(int) 2 => 'G. Venkat Rarna Sastry',
			(int) 3 => 'A. P. Amendment Act 1',
			(int) 4 => 'Krishna Rao',
			(int) 5 => 'Sri K. Jagannatha Rao',
			(int) 6 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry',
			(int) 7 => 'Reasons',
			(int) 8 => 'Bench',
			(int) 9 => 'Evershed M.R.',
			(int) 10 => 'Poole Corpn',
			(int) 11 => 'Administrative Law',
			(int) 12 => 'Administrative Law',
			(int) 13 => 'Bench',
			(int) 14 => 'Bench',
			(int) 15 => 'Sri M. Chandra Sekhara Rao',
			(int) 16 => 'him.5',
			(int) 17 => 'M. Chandrasekhara Rao',
			(int) 18 => 'P. Lakshmu',
			(int) 19 => 'Industrial Devlp',
			(int) 20 => 'Corpn',
			(int) 21 => 'Ramakant V. P. Darvot-kar',
			(int) 22 => 'Bench',
			(int) 23 => 'Amareswari',
			(int) 24 => 'Sarma',
			(int) 25 => 'G. Radhakrishna Rao',
			(int) 26 => 'P. Ramakrishnam Raju',
			(int) 27 => 'Industrial Devlp',
			(int) 28 => 'Corpn',
			(int) 29 => 'Ramakant V. P. Darvotkar',
			(int) 30 => 'M. S. Apte',
			(int) 31 => 'Sri Y. Ratnakar',
			(int) 32 => 'V. D. Tuljapurkar',
			(int) 33 => 'A. P. Amendment Act 1',
			(int) 34 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'High Court',
			(int) 1 => 'the Court of Additional',
			(int) 2 => 'Hyderabad',
			(int) 3 => 'Umpire',
			(int) 4 => 'O.S. No',
			(int) 5 => 'Court',
			(int) 6 => 'O.P. No',
			(int) 7 => 'O.P. No',
			(int) 8 => 'Court',
			(int) 9 => 'C.R.P. No',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'the City Civil Court',
			(int) 12 => 'the Civil Court',
			(int) 13 => 'W.P.',
			(int) 14 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry',
			(int) 15 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry',
			(int) 16 => 'Arbitrators',
			(int) 17 => 'Sections 14',
			(int) 18 => 'Court',
			(int) 19 => 'the Arbitration (Anrjhra Pradesh Amendment) Act',
			(int) 20 => 'Court',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Supreme Court',
			(int) 25 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
			(int) 26 => 'AIR 1990',
			(int) 27 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 28 => 'Court',
			(int) 29 => 'the Indian Law Commission',
			(int) 30 => 'Government',
			(int) 31 => 'Parliament',
			(int) 32 => 'Court',
			(int) 33 => 'the Court of Appeal',
			(int) 34 => 'Court',
			(int) 35 => 'Court',
			(int) 36 => 'the Indian Law Commission',
			(int) 37 => 'Parliament',
			(int) 38 => 'Court',
			(int) 39 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 40 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 41 => 'Court',
			(int) 42 => 'all.the High Courts',
			(int) 43 => 'Court',
			(int) 44 => 'Court',
			(int) 45 => 'Court',
			(int) 46 => 'Government',
			(int) 47 => 'State',
			(int) 48 => 'State',
			(int) 49 => 'Government',
			(int) 50 => 'State',
			(int) 51 => 'Statute',
			(int) 52 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 53 => 'Court',
			(int) 54 => 'Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.',
			(int) 55 => '1st Proviso to Section 17',
			(int) 56 => 'Court',
			(int) 57 => 'Court',
			(int) 58 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 59 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
			(int) 60 => 'AIR 1990 SC',
			(int) 61 => 'Legislature',
			(int) 62 => 'Legislature',
			(int) 63 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 64 => 'Bungo Steel Furniture',
			(int) 65 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 66 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
			(int) 67 => 'AIR 1990 SC',
			(int) 68 => 'Legislature',
			(int) 69 => 'Court',
			(int) 70 => 'Court',
			(int) 71 => 'Legislature',
			(int) 72 => 'Legislature',
			(int) 73 => 'Act',
			(int) 74 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 75 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
			(int) 76 => 'AIR 1990 SC',
			(int) 77 => 'Court',
			(int) 78 => 'Court',
			(int) 79 => 'Court',
			(int) 80 => 'Court',
			(int) 81 => 'Legislature',
			(int) 82 => 'Legislature',
			(int) 83 => 'Courts',
			(int) 84 => 'Court',
			(int) 85 => 'Engineer',
			(int) 86 => 'Gayatri Engineers Company',
			(int) 87 => 'State',
			(int) 88 => 'A.P.',
			(int) 89 => 'Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd.',
			(int) 90 => 'Orissa Ltd.',
			(int) 91 => 'Goa.',
			(int) 92 => 'Daman & Diu Housing Board',
			(int) 93 => 'Superintending Engineer',
			(int) 94 => 'Gayalri Engineers Company',
			(int) 95 => 'Court',
			(int) 96 => 'Justice',
			(int) 97 => 'Courts',
			(int) 98 => 'Court',
			(int) 99 => 'Amendment',
			(int) 100 => 'Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd.',
			(int) 101 => 'Orissa Ltd.',
			(int) 102 => 'Goa, Daman & Diu Housing Board',
			(int) 103 => 'Court',
			(int) 104 => 'Court',
			(int) 105 => 'Court',
			(int) 106 => 'Section M',
			(int) 107 => 'High Court',
			(int) 108 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 109 => 'Umpire',
			(int) 110 => 'Umpire',
			(int) 111 => 'O.S. No',
			(int) 112 => 'City Civil Court',
			(int) 113 => 'Hyderabad',
			(int) 114 => 'Court',
			(int) 115 => 'the Civil Court',
			(int) 116 => 'Umpire',
			(int) 117 => 'Hederabad',
			(int) 118 => 'City Civil Court',
			(int) 119 => 'Hyderabad',
			(int) 120 => 'O.S. No',
			(int) 121 => 'O.S. No.99'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Bombay',
			(int) 1 => 'O.S.',
			(int) 2 => 'LA',
			(int) 3 => 'United Kingdom',
			(int) 4 => 'Proviso',
			(int) 5 => 'India',
			(int) 6 => 'England',
			(int) 7 => 'U.S.A.',
			(int) 8 => 'Australia',
			(int) 9 => 'us',
			(int) 10 => 'Delhi',
			(int) 11 => 'Governmental',
			(int) 12 => 'India',
			(int) 13 => 'Proviso',
			(int) 14 => 'Bombay'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '19-2-',
			(int) 1 => '19-2-1990',
			(int) 2 => '19-2-1990',
			(int) 3 => '19-2-',
			(int) 4 => '19-2-'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Objects'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Brownsea Haven Properties',
			(int) 1 => 'Food Corpn'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '424011',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 14 (1) and (2), 17, 20, 21, 30, 34 and 47; Arbitration (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1990',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. Nos. 11049 and 12938 of 1990',
			'appellant' => 'M/S. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., Pune',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M/S. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., Pune Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - justified award - Proviso to Section 14 (1) and Proviso 1st (as added by A. P. Act of 1990) to Section 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 - certain award without reasons given by arbitrator relating to certain dispute - award challenged - certain amendments relating to Provisos to Sections 14 (1) and 17 introduced during pendency of suit in Civil Court - petition filed challenging scope of Provisos - award passed before introduction of Amendment Act - agreement did not provide for any reasons - award valid even though reasons not given - held, Provisos to Sections 14 (1) and 17 not to be applied as award given without reasons.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (59 OF 1988)Section 149 (2): [V. Gopala Gowda & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Insurers entitlement to defend the action  Joint appeal by insured and insurer - Held, The language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of Section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. It shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, and no other grounds are available to it. The insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other grounds, which are available to the insured. If insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer and will be negation of the intention of the Legislature and annihilate mandate of the provisions of Sections 170 and 149 of the Act. The insured can pursue appeal only after giving up the insurer as the appellant and not otherwise. In the instant case, the insurer has not withdrawn from party array but has remained prosecuting the appeal with the insured on the grounds which are available only to the insured. Therefore, the joint appeal as filed by the insured and the insurer is not maintainable. 

Section 166: [V. Gopala Gowda & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Claim for compensation  Accident due to mechanical defect in the vehicle  Held, It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in an accident, which occurred during the course of his employment, albeit due to his negligence but law does not render him remediless. Statutory right is conferred on him, accruing by virtue of his employment under insured to claim compensation under Workmens Compensation Act. The insurer is statutorily duty bound to discharge the liability of the owner of the vehicle, to pay such compensation to the employee, as mandated under the provisions of Section 149 of the Act. The right of an injured employee or his dependents as the case may be to be compensated, when injury is suffered or death occurs during his employment, is recognised not only under Workmens Compensation Act, but also under benevolent provisions under Section 166 and 167 of the M.V. Act. The right of driver to seek compensation is not restricted only to the Workmens Compensation Act, it has been enlarged to enable such person to seek just compensation (Sections 166 and 168), conferring upon him the right of election engrafted under Section 167 of the Act to choose either of the two Forum. The only defence which the insurer could take is limit of its liability as enumerated under Section 147 of the Act, leading to contest, inter alia, only between insured and insurer and does not impact claimants right to recover the compensation determined by the Tribunal which crystallizes into enforceable right against both. In the instant case, the claimant/driver has exercised right of election under Section 167 of the Act to seek compensation under Section 166 of the Act resulting in award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. Undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. The owner is therefore, tortfeasor. 

Section 168: [V. Gopala Gowda & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Insurers limit of liability -  Held, It is well settled that the liability of the Insurance Company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. Is for the Insurance Company to show that the Insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. That issue was neither raised before the Tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. Thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under Section 149 (1) of the Act. Where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the Act, instead of seeking compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act. On facts, held, The material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the Tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. The settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye. Compensation of Rs.4,15,150/- awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs.8,20,000/-.  -  ' 4. The question whether an award is vitiated by failure to give reasons has been considered by the 5 Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. it was held that failure to give reasons in the award does not conslitute violation of principles of natural justice and that the -award cannot be set aside on that ground unless parties have contemplated in the agreement that the award should contain reasons. It is a well known rule of construction that if a certain interpretation has been uniformly put upon the meaning of a statute and transactions such as dealings inproperly and making of contracts have taken place on the basis of that interpretation, the Court will not put a different interpretation upon it which will materially affect those transactions. There is well established authority for the. Any lapse in that behalf might lend itself to and perhaps justify, the legitimate criticism that Government failed to provide against possible prejudice to public interest. Chandra Sekhara Rao, to the effect that unreasoned award is bad does not help him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Y. Sivarama Sastry, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Govt. Pleader for Arbitration and ;M Chandrasekhara Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1995-06-14',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dasaratha Rama Reddy, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. As both the writ petitions raise common points, they are disposed of by a common judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">W.P. No. 11049 of 1990 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner entered into agreement with the second respondent on 23-2-1983 for sale of cement manufacturing machinery. Clause 12(2) of the agreement provided for referring any dispute, that may arise under it, to arbitration. As certain disputes arose, the petitioner nominated Justice Rege, retired Judge of High Court of Bombay, as arbitrator, while the second respondent appointed late Jusfice Krishna Rao, as arbitrator. Justice G. Venkat Rarna Sastry was appointed as O.S. No. 2 off 988, in the Court of Additional Chief Judge (Temporary), Hyderabad, as Umpire. The arbitrators gave unanimous award on 2-2-1987 granting petitioner Rs. 17,74,858/- together with interest of Rs. 3,05,006,/- but did not give reasons. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 249 of 1987, later renumbered under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the.'Act') to make the award rule of the Court. The second respondent filed O.P. No. 387 of 1987, later renumbered as O.P. No. 41 of 1988, underSection 30 of the Act to set aside the award. The Court below pronounced ex parte judgment on 8-11-1988. LA. No. 453 of 1988 filed by the second respondent to set aside the ex parte decree was allowed on 1-2-1989 and C.R.P. No. 1043 of 1989 filed against the same by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 24-11-1989. When the matter was thus sent back to the City Civil Court and was pending there, A. P. Amendment Act 1 of 1990 adding provisos to Sections 14(1) and 17 of the Act came into force with effect from 19-2-1990. Based on this amendment, the Civil Court on 3-7-1990 remanded the mailer to the arbitrators to give reasons for the award. But Justice Krishna Rao, arbitrator, nominated by second respondent refused to act as arbitrator and in his place Sri K. Jagannatha Rao, Advocate, was appointed as arbitrator on 26-7-1990. At this stage, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 11049 of 1990 questioning the vires of proviso to Section 14 and 1st proviso to Section 17 introduced by Act I of 1990 and obtained stay of all further proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the amendment making all awards passed without giving reasons as invalid without making any classification of agreements is arbitrary and that in any event as proviso to Section 14 is not retrospective, the 1st proviso to Section 17 cannot be applied to the award passed prior to 19-2-1990. I shall take up first the alternative contention of Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry. To appreciate the contention of Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, it is necessary to refer to the objects and reasons of the amendment, proviso to Section 14 and 1st proviso to Section 17 of the Act. They read as follows;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Statement of Objects and Reasons </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The provisions of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> are not specific that the award shall give reasons. In the absence of a reasoned award, the parties affected by it remain unaware of how the arbitrators reached their decision. The process is also susceptible of gross abuse affording little or no legal remedy to the parties. The present trend of law in United Kingdom and other countries is towardspassing a reasoned award. Accordingly, the Government considered it desirable to amend the provisions of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> to enjoin upon the Arbitrators to adduce reasons in the awards passed by them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is accordingly decided to amend Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a>:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> ..........' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Proviso to Section 14(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Provided that the arbitrators or umpire shall give reasons for any award made under this section and no award shall be valid unlessreasons therefor are given as aforesaid.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1st Proviso to Section 17 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Provided that where an award pending in the Court at the commencement of the Arbitration (Anrjhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1990 or an award filed in the Court, thereafter does not contain reasons therefor as required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 the Court shall not proceed to pronounce the judgment according to the award, but shall remit the award to the arbitrators or the umpire forgiving reasons therefor as required by the said proviso and thereupon the arbitrators or umpire shall, within thirty days from' the date of remittance of the award to them by the Court give reasons for the award and file the same in the Court.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The question whether an award is vitiated by failure to give reasons has been considered by the 5 Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors, AIR 1990 SC 1426 where, after reviewing entire case law. it was held that failure to give reasons in the award does not conslitute violation of principles of natural justice and that the -award cannot be set aside on that ground unless parties have contemplated in the agreement that the award should contain reasons. The Supreme Court held as follows (Paras 33 to 37): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The question which arises for consideration in these cases is whether it is appropriate for this Court to take the view that any awardpassed under the Act, that is, the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> is liable to be remitted or set aside solelytm the ground that the arbitrator has not given reasons thus virtually introducing by ajudicial verdict an amendment to the Act when it has not been the law for nearly 7/8 decades. The people in India as in oilier parts . of the world such as England, U.S.A. and Australia have become accustomed to the system of settlement of disputes by private arbitration and have accepted awards made against them as binding even though no reasons have been given in support of the awards a long time. They have attached more importance to the element of finality of the awards than their legality. Of course, when reasons are given in support of the awards and those reasons disclose any error apparent on the face of the record people have not refrained from questioning such awards before the Courts. It is not as if that people are without any remedy at all in cases where they find that it is in their interest to require the arbitrator to give reasons for the award. In cases where reasons are required, it is open to the parties to the dispute to introduce a term either in the arbitration agreement or in the deed of submission requiring the arbitrators . to give reasons in support of the awards. When the parties to the dispute insist upon reasons being given, the arbitrator is, as already observed earlier, under an obligation to give reasons. But there may be many arbitrations in which parties to the dispute may not relish the disclosure of the reasons for the awards. In the circumstances and particularly having regard to the Various reasons given by the Indian Law Commission for not recommending to the Government to introduce an amendment in the Act requiring the arbitrators to give reasons for their awards we fee! that it may not be appropriate to take the view that all awards which do not contain reasons should either be remitted or set aside. A decision on the question argued before us involves a question of legislative policy which should be left to the decision of Parliament. It is a well known rule of construction that if a certain interpretation has been uniformly put upon the meaning of a statute and transactions such as dealings inproperly and making of contracts have taken place on the basis of that interpretation, the Court will not put a different interpretation upon it which will materially affect those transactions. We may refer here to the decision of the Court of Appeal rendered by Lord Evershed M.R. in Brownsea Haven Properties v. Poole Corpn. (1958) Ch 574 in which it is observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'There is well established authority for the. view that a decision of long standing, on the basis of which many persons will in the course of time have arranged their affairs should not lightly be disturbed by a superior Court not strictly bound itself by the decision.' Courts should be slow in taking decisions tf which will have the effect of shaking rights and titles which have been founded through a long time upon the conviction that a particular interpretation of law is the legal and proper one and is one which will not be departed from.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is no doubt true that in the decisions pertaining to Administrative Law, this Court in some cases has observed that the giving of reasons in an administrative decision is a rule of natural justice by an extension of the prevailing rule. It would be in the interest 'of the world of commerce that the said rule is confined to the area to Administrative Law. We do appreciate the contention urged on behalf of the parties who contend that it would be made obligatory on the part of the arbitrator to give reasons for the award, that there is no justification to leave the small area covered by the law of arbitration out of the general rule that the decision of every judicial and quasi-judicial body should be supported by reasons. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that what applies generally to settlement of disputes by authorities governed by public law need not be extended to all cases arising under private law such as these arising under the law of arbitration which is intended for settlement of private disputes. As stated elsewhere in the course of this judgment if the parties to the dispute feel that reasons should be given by the arbitrators for the awards it is within their power to insist upon such reasons being given at the time when they enter intoarbitration agreement or sign the deed of submission. It is significant that although nearly a decade ago the Indian Law Commission submitted its report on the law of arbitration specifically mentioning therein that there was no necessity to amend the law of arbitration requiring the arbitrators to give reasons, Parliament has not chosen to take any step in the direction of the amendment of the law of arbitration. Even after the passing of the English Arbitration Act, 1979 unless a Court requires the arbitrator to give reasons for the award (vide sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 1 of the English Arbitration Act, 1979), an award is not liable to be set aside merely on the ground that no reasons have been given in support of it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is true that in two cases one decided by the High Court of Delhi and another decided by the High Court of Orissa there are some observations to the effect that it would be in the interests of justice if the arbitrators are required to give reasons for their awards because in recent years the moral standards of arbitrators are going down. But generally this Court and all.the High Courts have taken the view that merely because the reasons are not given an award is not liable to be remitted or set aside except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission, or an order made by the Court such as the one under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act or the statute governing the arbitration requires that the arbitrator or umpire should give reasons for the award. The arbitrators or umpire have passed the awards which are involved in cases before us relying on the law declared by this Court that the awards could not be questioned merely on the ground that they have not given reasons. At the same time it cannot also be said that all the awards are contrary to law and justice. In this situation it would be wholly unjust to pass an order either remitting or setting aside the awards, merely on the ground that no reasons are given in them, except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission or an order made by the Court such as the one under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act or the statute governing the arbitration required that the arbitrator or the umpire should givereasons for the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> There is, however, one aspect of non-speaking awards in non-statutory arbitrations to which Government and Governmental authorities are parties that compel attention. The trappings of a body which discharges judicial functions and requires to act in accordance with law with their concomitant obligations for reasoned decisions are not attracted to a private adjudication of the nature of arbitration as the latter, as we have noticed earlier, is not supposed to exert the State's sovereign judicial power. But arbitral awards in disputes to which the State and its instrumentalities are parties affect public interest and the matter or the manner in which Government and its instrumentalities allow their interest to be affected by such arbitral adjudications involve larger questions of policy and public interest. Government and its instrumentalities cannot simply allow large financial interests of the State to be prejudicially affected by non-reviewable --except in the limited way allowed by the Statute -- non-speaking arbitral awards. Indeed, this branch of the system of dispute resolution has, of late, acquired a certain degree of notoriety by the manner in which'in many cases the financial interests of Government have come to suffer by awards which have raised eye-brows by doubts as to their rectitude and propriety. It will not be justifiable for Governments or their instrumen- talities to enter into arbitration agreements which do not expressly stipulate the rendering of reasoned and speaking awards, Governments and their instrumentalities should as a matter of policy and public interest -- if not as a compulsion of law -- ensure that wherever they enter into agreements for resolution of disputes by resort to private arbitrations, the requirement of speaking awards is expressly stipulated and ensured. It is for Governments and their instrumentalities to ensure in future this requirement as a matter of policy in the larger public interest. Any lapse in that behalf might lend itself to and perhaps justify, the legitimate criticism that Government failed to provide against possible prejudice to public interest.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court further summarised as follows at para 38 : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Having given our careful and anxious consideration to the contentions urged by the parties we feel that law should be allowed to remain as it is until the competent legislature amends the law. In the result we hold that an award passed under the Arbitration Act is not liable to be remitted or set aside merely on the ground that no reasons have been given in its support except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission or an order made by the Court such as the one under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act or the statute governing the arbitration requiies that the arbitrator or the umpire should give reasons for the award. These cases will now go back to the Division Bench for disposal in accordance with law and the view expressed by us in this decision.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of this pronouncement of the 5 Judge Bench, the decision in Food Corpn. of India v. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., : [1988]3SCR366 rendered by two Judges Bench, cited by Sri M. Chandra Sekhara Rao, to the effect that unreasoned award is bad does not help him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is significant to note that Proviso to Section 14(1) is not given retrospective effect, while 1st Proviso to Section 17 invalidates any award pending in the Court at the commencement of the Act i.e., 19-2-1990, or any award filed in the Court subsequently and which does not contain reasons and directs that such awards must be remitted to the arbitrators. There is apparant conflict between the two provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The two provisos can be reconciled by interpreting the 1st proviso to Section 17 as referring to awards passed in respect of agreements which contain a stipulation that reasons must be given in the award. Such awards will be invalid even dehors proviso to Section 14(1) as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors (AIR 1990 SC 1426) (supra). Then the question arises why the Legislature has intervened to declare that they are invalid,which are even otherwise invalid. The reason is obvious. The Legislature wanted to give effect to the settled position of law as decided by the Supreme Court in Bungo Steel Furniture pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, : [1967]1SCR633 and referred to in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors (AIR 1990 SC 1426) (supra) (hat awards which do not give reasons required to be given as per the agreement are invalid. The Legislature has also declared that in such circumstances, the Court has no option but to remit the matter to arbitrators. Before amendment, it was-open to Court either to remit or to decide the matter itself on merits. If the intention is otherwise, the Legislature would have given retrospective effect to proviso to Section 14 also, which would have resulted in setting aside number of awards and remitting back to arbitrators. The Legislature obviously wanted to avoid this.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The matter can be looked at from another angle. Suppose the parties entered into agreement before commencement of the amendment without making any stipulation that reasons must be given in the award, as all the provisions of the Act apply to awards by virtue of Section 47 of (he Act and as the Act, as it then stood, did not require the arbitrator to give any reasons for the award, any award passed before 19-2-1990 without giving reasons will not be invalid as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors (AIR 1990 SC 1426) (supra) since the parties did not contemplate that reasons should be given. The first proviso to Section 17 does not apply to such award. On the other hand, if the award has not been passed by 19-2-1990. proviso to Section 14(1) will govern the award and if reasons are not given, it will be invalid as per proviso to Section 14(1) even though the parties did not contemplate reasoned award. Consequently, under Section 17, the Court has no option but to remit the matter to the arbitrator. Now, let us taken another example where parties have stipulated in the agreement entered into before 19-2-1990 that reasons must be given in the award. Even de-hors proviso to Section 14(1), any award passed before 19-2-1990without giving reasons will be invalid and the Court earlier may either remit the matter to the arbitrator for giving reasons in support of the award or itself pass order on merits. But the first proviso to Section 17 now leaves no discretion to the Court which has to send back the matter to the arbitrator to give reasons in support of the award. As regards agreements entered into after the amendment, even in the absence of any stipulation between the parties about the necessity lo give reasoned awards, as the Act governs the award by virtue of Section 47, the award must comply with proviso to Section 14(1) and give reasons and if any unreasoned award is passed, the Court has to set aside the same and remit to arbilrator under first proviso to Section 17. Thus the intention of she Legislature is to give effect to the intention of the parties in respect of awards passed prior to 19-2-1990 and to make the passing of reasoned awards after 19-2-1990 irrespective of intention of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. By this harmoncous construction of the two provisos, no prejudice is caused to the parlies, and at the same time, it will not result in setting aside numerous awards passed prior lo 19-2-1990. No doubt, the first proviso to Section 17 is not happily worded. The expression 'as required by proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14' gives rise to difficulty and ambiguity. The draftsman must have used these words by way of description of the awards, which requires reasons to be given. As already seen, even awards passed before amendment had to contain reasons if the agreement contemplates reasons to be given. On the other hand, if this expression is extended to cover all awards, it will amount to giving retrospective effect to proviso to Section 14(1), which the Legislature itself did not give.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. M. Chandrasekhara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the first proviso to Section 17 applies to all awards pending at the commencement of the Amendment Act or awards filed in Courts subsequently but does not apply to awards made rule of the Court before commencement of the Act and relied on the decisions inSuperintending Engineer v. Gayatri Engineers Company, (1991) -1 Andh LT 658, State of A.P. v. P. Lakshmu Reddi, (1993) 3 Andh LT 694, Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd. v. Industrial Devlp. Corpn. of Orissa Ltd., : [1993]1SCR229 and Goa. Daman & Diu Housing Board v. Ramakant V. P. Darvot-kar, : [1991]3SCR904 . In Superintending Engineer v. Gayalri Engineers Company (supra), a division Bench of this Court consisting of Justice Amareswari and Justice P.L.N. Sarma held that the 1st proviso to Section 17 applies only to awards pending at the commencement of the Act or awards filed in Courts subsequently, but not to awards made rule of the Court before the commencement of the Amendment and which are subject matter of appeals or revisions. To the similar effect is the decision of the Division Bench consisting of Justice G. Radhakrishna Rao and Justice P. Ramakrishnam Raju in State of A. P. v. P. Lakhshmu Reddi (supra). These decisions do not help the respondent as the question that arises in this case has neither been raised nor decided in those cases. In Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd. v. Industrial Devlp. Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (supra), the question was what is meant by reasoned award. Setting out conclusions on issues without discussing the reasons for such conclusion was held to be not reasoned or speaking award. This decision also is not of any lassistance to the responded. Similarly, the decision in Goa, Daman & Diu Housing Board v. Ramakant V. P. Darvotkar : [1991]3SCR904 (supra) interpreting Section 16 of the Act is not relevant for the purpose of this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. To sum up, unreasoned awards affected by the amendment can be classified as follows :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If reasons are stipulated in agreement</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If reasons are not stipulated in agreement</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Before 19-2-1990After 19-2-1990Before 19-2-1990 After 19-2-I990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Passed and filed in the Court before 19-2-1990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Invalid with consequential result of eitherremitting thematter toArbitrator ordecision bythe Court it self on merits</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Invalid with the consequential result of remitting the matter toArbitrator</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Valid Valid Not affected by the amendment</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Passed before amendment but filed after 19-2-1990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Not applicable-do-Not applicable-do-passed and filed in the Court after 19-2-I990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Not applicable-do-Not applicable Invalid irrespective of agreement with the consequential result of remitting the matter to Arbitrator<p style="text-align: justify;">11. In the instant case, as it is the admitted case of the parties that the agreement did not provide for reasons in the award; applying the above principles, I hold that the award passed on 2-2-1987, before commencement of the amendment Act i.e., 19-2-1990, is valid even though reasons were not given and neither proviso to Section 14(1) nor first proviso to Section M applies to such award. In view ofthis, I need not go into the question of vires of two provisos. No other point is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">W.P. No. 12938 of 1990 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The petitioner entered into agreement with the 2nd respondent on 20-7-1981 for supply of cement manufacturing machinery. Clause 11(2) of the agreement provided for referring any dispute, that may arise under it, to arbitration. As certain disputes arose, the petitioner nominated Justice M. S. Apte, a retired Judge of High Court of Bombay, as arbitrator, while the second respondent appointed Sri Y. Ratnakar, Advocate, as arbitrator, Justice V. D. Tuljapurkar, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court was appointed as Umpire. As there was disagreement between the two arbitrators, the matter was referredfor determination by the Umpire who passed award on 22-12-1989 granting petitioner Rs.4,08,084/- together with interest of Rs. 2,82,000-/- but did not give reasons. The petitioner Company filed O.S. No. 99 of 1990 before the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,under Section 14(2) of the Act for making the award Rule of the Court When the matter was pending in the Civil Court, A. P. Amendment Act 1 of 1990 adding provisos to Sections 14(1) and 17 of the Act came into force with effect from 19-2-1990. Apprehending that in pursuance of proviso to Section 14(1) and 1st proviso to Section 17, the third respondent would remit the award to the Umpire for furnishing reasons, the petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the vires of proviso to Section 14(1) and 1st proviso to Section 17 introduced by Act 1 of 1990 and obtained stay of all further proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised the same contentions as urged in W.P. No. 11049 of 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As already held by me, award passed before cormmencement of the amendment Act i.e:, 19-2-1990, is valid even though reasons are not given, if the agreement did not provide for reasons in award. It is the admitted case of the parties that the agreement did not provide for reasons in the award. Thus, in the instant case neither proviso to Section 14(1) nor first proviso to Section 17 applies. In view of this, I need not go into the question of vires of two provisos. Accordingly, this writ petition also has to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed and the Additional Chief Judge, Hederabad and IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, are directed to proceed with O.S. No. 2 of 1988 & O.P. No.41 of 1988 and O.S. No.99 of 1990 respectively and dispose them of in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration Act without reference to the Amendment Act 1 of 1990. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Petitions allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1996AP167',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Andhra Pradesh and Others',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '424011'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M/S. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., Pune Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 14(2',
		(int) 1 => 'the Arbitration Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 14',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 14',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 14',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 8 => 'the Arbitration Act',
		(int) 9 => 'the Arbitration Act',
		(int) 10 => 'the Arbitration Act',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 17 'Provided',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 14',
		(int) 13 => 'Paras 33',
		(int) 14 => 'the Arbitration Act',
		(int) 15 => 'the English Arbitration Act',
		(int) 16 => 'Section 1',
		(int) 17 => 'Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act',
		(int) 18 => 'Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act',
		(int) 19 => 'the Arbitration Act',
		(int) 20 => 'Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act',
		(int) 21 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 22 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 23 => 'Section 14',
		(int) 24 => 'Section 47',
		(int) 25 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 26 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 27 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 28 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 29 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 30 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 31 => 'Section 47',
		(int) 32 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 33 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 34 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 35 => 'Section 14'',
		(int) 36 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 37 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 38 => 'the Amendment Act',
		(int) 39 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 40 => 'Section 16 of the Act',
		(int) 41 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 42 => 'Section 14(2',
		(int) 43 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 44 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 45 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 46 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 47 => 'Act 1 of 1990',
		(int) 48 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 49 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 50 => 'Arbitration Act',
		(int) 51 => 'the Amendment Act 1 of 1990'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '11049 of 1990 2',
		(int) 1 => '1987',
		(int) 2 => '1987',
		(int) 3 => '1988',
		(int) 4 => '8-11-1988',
		(int) 5 => '1988',
		(int) 6 => '1989',
		(int) 7 => '24-11-1989',
		(int) 8 => '1990',
		(int) 9 => '1990',
		(int) 10 => '11049 of 1990',
		(int) 11 => '1990',
		(int) 12 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 13 => '1940',
		(int) 14 => '1940',
		(int) 15 => '1990',
		(int) 16 => 'thirty days',
		(int) 17 => '1426',
		(int) 18 => '37',
		(int) 19 => '1940',
		(int) 20 => 'nearly 7/8 decades',
		(int) 21 => '1958',
		(int) 22 => 'nearly a decade ago',
		(int) 23 => '1979',
		(int) 24 => '1979',
		(int) 25 => 'recent years',
		(int) 26 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 27 => '1426',
		(int) 28 => '1967]1SCR633',
		(int) 29 => '1426',
		(int) 30 => '1426',
		(int) 31 => '1991',
		(int) 32 => '1993',
		(int) 33 => '1990',
		(int) 34 => '1990 12',
		(int) 35 => '22-12-1989',
		(int) 36 => '1990',
		(int) 37 => '1990',
		(int) 38 => '11049',
		(int) 39 => '1990',
		(int) 40 => '1988',
		(int) 41 => '1990'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'second',
		(int) 1 => 'second',
		(int) 2 => 'second',
		(int) 3 => 'second',
		(int) 4 => 'second',
		(int) 5 => 'first',
		(int) 6 => 'first',
		(int) 7 => 'first',
		(int) 8 => 'first',
		(int) 9 => 'first',
		(int) 10 => 'first',
		(int) 11 => 'first',
		(int) 12 => '2nd',
		(int) 13 => 'second',
		(int) 14 => '1st',
		(int) 15 => 'third',
		(int) 16 => '1st',
		(int) 17 => 'first'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '23',
		(int) 1 => '2',
		(int) 2 => '988',
		(int) 3 => '2',
		(int) 4 => '3,05,006,/-',
		(int) 5 => '249',
		(int) 6 => '387',
		(int) 7 => '41',
		(int) 8 => '30',
		(int) 9 => '453',
		(int) 10 => '1',
		(int) 11 => '17',
		(int) 12 => '3',
		(int) 13 => '26',
		(int) 14 => '19-2-1990',
		(int) 15 => '1',
		(int) 16 => '2',
		(int) 17 => '17',
		(int) 18 => '1',
		(int) 19 => '5',
		(int) 20 => '574',
		(int) 21 => '5',
		(int) 22 => '6',
		(int) 23 => 'two',
		(int) 24 => 'one',
		(int) 25 => '38',
		(int) 26 => '5',
		(int) 27 => '1988]3SCR366',
		(int) 28 => 'two',
		(int) 29 => '19',
		(int) 30 => 'two',
		(int) 31 => 'two',
		(int) 32 => '19-2-1990',
		(int) 33 => '19',
		(int) 34 => '19-2-1990',
		(int) 35 => '19',
		(int) 36 => 'two',
		(int) 37 => '19-2-1990',
		(int) 38 => '1',
		(int) 39 => '658',
		(int) 40 => '3',
		(int) 41 => '694',
		(int) 42 => '1993]1SCR229',
		(int) 43 => '1991]3SCR904',
		(int) 44 => '1991]3SCR904',
		(int) 45 => '19-2-1990After',
		(int) 46 => '19-2-1990',
		(int) 47 => '19',
		(int) 48 => '19',
		(int) 49 => '19-2-1990Not',
		(int) 50 => '19',
		(int) 51 => '2',
		(int) 52 => '19',
		(int) 53 => 'two',
		(int) 54 => '20',
		(int) 55 => 'two',
		(int) 56 => '17',
		(int) 57 => '1990.14',
		(int) 58 => '19',
		(int) 59 => 'two',
		(int) 60 => '2'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rege',
		(int) 1 => 'Krishna Rao',
		(int) 2 => 'G. Venkat Rarna Sastry',
		(int) 3 => 'A. P. Amendment Act 1',
		(int) 4 => 'Krishna Rao',
		(int) 5 => 'Sri K. Jagannatha Rao',
		(int) 6 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry',
		(int) 7 => 'Reasons',
		(int) 8 => 'Bench',
		(int) 9 => 'Evershed M.R.',
		(int) 10 => 'Poole Corpn',
		(int) 11 => 'Administrative Law',
		(int) 12 => 'Administrative Law',
		(int) 13 => 'Bench',
		(int) 14 => 'Bench',
		(int) 15 => 'Sri M. Chandra Sekhara Rao',
		(int) 16 => 'him.5',
		(int) 17 => 'M. Chandrasekhara Rao',
		(int) 18 => 'P. Lakshmu',
		(int) 19 => 'Industrial Devlp',
		(int) 20 => 'Corpn',
		(int) 21 => 'Ramakant V. P. Darvot-kar',
		(int) 22 => 'Bench',
		(int) 23 => 'Amareswari',
		(int) 24 => 'Sarma',
		(int) 25 => 'G. Radhakrishna Rao',
		(int) 26 => 'P. Ramakrishnam Raju',
		(int) 27 => 'Industrial Devlp',
		(int) 28 => 'Corpn',
		(int) 29 => 'Ramakant V. P. Darvotkar',
		(int) 30 => 'M. S. Apte',
		(int) 31 => 'Sri Y. Ratnakar',
		(int) 32 => 'V. D. Tuljapurkar',
		(int) 33 => 'A. P. Amendment Act 1',
		(int) 34 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'High Court',
		(int) 1 => 'the Court of Additional',
		(int) 2 => 'Hyderabad',
		(int) 3 => 'Umpire',
		(int) 4 => 'O.S. No',
		(int) 5 => 'Court',
		(int) 6 => 'O.P. No',
		(int) 7 => 'O.P. No',
		(int) 8 => 'Court',
		(int) 9 => 'C.R.P. No',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'the City Civil Court',
		(int) 12 => 'the Civil Court',
		(int) 13 => 'W.P.',
		(int) 14 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry',
		(int) 15 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry',
		(int) 16 => 'Arbitrators',
		(int) 17 => 'Sections 14',
		(int) 18 => 'Court',
		(int) 19 => 'the Arbitration (Anrjhra Pradesh Amendment) Act',
		(int) 20 => 'Court',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Supreme Court',
		(int) 25 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
		(int) 26 => 'AIR 1990',
		(int) 27 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 28 => 'Court',
		(int) 29 => 'the Indian Law Commission',
		(int) 30 => 'Government',
		(int) 31 => 'Parliament',
		(int) 32 => 'Court',
		(int) 33 => 'the Court of Appeal',
		(int) 34 => 'Court',
		(int) 35 => 'Court',
		(int) 36 => 'the Indian Law Commission',
		(int) 37 => 'Parliament',
		(int) 38 => 'Court',
		(int) 39 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 40 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 41 => 'Court',
		(int) 42 => 'all.the High Courts',
		(int) 43 => 'Court',
		(int) 44 => 'Court',
		(int) 45 => 'Court',
		(int) 46 => 'Government',
		(int) 47 => 'State',
		(int) 48 => 'State',
		(int) 49 => 'Government',
		(int) 50 => 'State',
		(int) 51 => 'Statute',
		(int) 52 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 53 => 'Court',
		(int) 54 => 'Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.',
		(int) 55 => '1st Proviso to Section 17',
		(int) 56 => 'Court',
		(int) 57 => 'Court',
		(int) 58 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 59 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
		(int) 60 => 'AIR 1990 SC',
		(int) 61 => 'Legislature',
		(int) 62 => 'Legislature',
		(int) 63 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 64 => 'Bungo Steel Furniture',
		(int) 65 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 66 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
		(int) 67 => 'AIR 1990 SC',
		(int) 68 => 'Legislature',
		(int) 69 => 'Court',
		(int) 70 => 'Court',
		(int) 71 => 'Legislature',
		(int) 72 => 'Legislature',
		(int) 73 => 'Act',
		(int) 74 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 75 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
		(int) 76 => 'AIR 1990 SC',
		(int) 77 => 'Court',
		(int) 78 => 'Court',
		(int) 79 => 'Court',
		(int) 80 => 'Court',
		(int) 81 => 'Legislature',
		(int) 82 => 'Legislature',
		(int) 83 => 'Courts',
		(int) 84 => 'Court',
		(int) 85 => 'Engineer',
		(int) 86 => 'Gayatri Engineers Company',
		(int) 87 => 'State',
		(int) 88 => 'A.P.',
		(int) 89 => 'Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd.',
		(int) 90 => 'Orissa Ltd.',
		(int) 91 => 'Goa.',
		(int) 92 => 'Daman & Diu Housing Board',
		(int) 93 => 'Superintending Engineer',
		(int) 94 => 'Gayalri Engineers Company',
		(int) 95 => 'Court',
		(int) 96 => 'Justice',
		(int) 97 => 'Courts',
		(int) 98 => 'Court',
		(int) 99 => 'Amendment',
		(int) 100 => 'Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd.',
		(int) 101 => 'Orissa Ltd.',
		(int) 102 => 'Goa, Daman & Diu Housing Board',
		(int) 103 => 'Court',
		(int) 104 => 'Court',
		(int) 105 => 'Court',
		(int) 106 => 'Section M',
		(int) 107 => 'High Court',
		(int) 108 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 109 => 'Umpire',
		(int) 110 => 'Umpire',
		(int) 111 => 'O.S. No',
		(int) 112 => 'City Civil Court',
		(int) 113 => 'Hyderabad',
		(int) 114 => 'Court',
		(int) 115 => 'the Civil Court',
		(int) 116 => 'Umpire',
		(int) 117 => 'Hederabad',
		(int) 118 => 'City Civil Court',
		(int) 119 => 'Hyderabad',
		(int) 120 => 'O.S. No',
		(int) 121 => 'O.S. No.99'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Bombay',
		(int) 1 => 'O.S.',
		(int) 2 => 'LA',
		(int) 3 => 'United Kingdom',
		(int) 4 => 'Proviso',
		(int) 5 => 'India',
		(int) 6 => 'England',
		(int) 7 => 'U.S.A.',
		(int) 8 => 'Australia',
		(int) 9 => 'us',
		(int) 10 => 'Delhi',
		(int) 11 => 'Governmental',
		(int) 12 => 'India',
		(int) 13 => 'Proviso',
		(int) 14 => 'Bombay'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '19-2-',
		(int) 1 => '19-2-1990',
		(int) 2 => '19-2-1990',
		(int) 3 => '19-2-',
		(int) 4 => '19-2-'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Objects'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Brownsea Haven Properties',
		(int) 1 => 'Food Corpn'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '424011',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 14 (1) and (2), 17, 20, 21, 30, 34 and 47; Arbitration (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1990',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. Nos. 11049 and 12938 of 1990',
		'appellant' => 'M/S. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., Pune',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M/S. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., Pune Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - justified award - Proviso to Section 14 (1) and Proviso 1st (as added by A. P. Act of 1990) to Section 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 - certain award without reasons given by arbitrator relating to certain dispute - award challenged - certain amendments relating to Provisos to Sections 14 (1) and 17 introduced during pendency of suit in Civil Court - petition filed challenging scope of Provisos - award passed before introduction of Amendment Act - agreement did not provide for any reasons - award valid even though reasons not given - held, Provisos to Sections 14 (1) and 17 not to be applied as award given without reasons.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (59 OF 1988)Section 149 (2): [V. Gopala Gowda & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Insurers entitlement to defend the action  Joint appeal by insured and insurer - Held, The language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of Section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. It shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, and no other grounds are available to it. The insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other grounds, which are available to the insured. If insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer and will be negation of the intention of the Legislature and annihilate mandate of the provisions of Sections 170 and 149 of the Act. The insured can pursue appeal only after giving up the insurer as the appellant and not otherwise. In the instant case, the insurer has not withdrawn from party array but has remained prosecuting the appeal with the insured on the grounds which are available only to the insured. Therefore, the joint appeal as filed by the insured and the insurer is not maintainable. 

Section 166: [V. Gopala Gowda & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Claim for compensation  Accident due to mechanical defect in the vehicle  Held, It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in an accident, which occurred during the course of his employment, albeit due to his negligence but law does not render him remediless. Statutory right is conferred on him, accruing by virtue of his employment under insured to claim compensation under Workmens Compensation Act. The insurer is statutorily duty bound to discharge the liability of the owner of the vehicle, to pay such compensation to the employee, as mandated under the provisions of Section 149 of the Act. The right of an injured employee or his dependents as the case may be to be compensated, when injury is suffered or death occurs during his employment, is recognised not only under Workmens Compensation Act, but also under benevolent provisions under Section 166 and 167 of the M.V. Act. The right of driver to seek compensation is not restricted only to the Workmens Compensation Act, it has been enlarged to enable such person to seek just compensation (Sections 166 and 168), conferring upon him the right of election engrafted under Section 167 of the Act to choose either of the two Forum. The only defence which the insurer could take is limit of its liability as enumerated under Section 147 of the Act, leading to contest, inter alia, only between insured and insurer and does not impact claimants right to recover the compensation determined by the Tribunal which crystallizes into enforceable right against both. In the instant case, the claimant/driver has exercised right of election under Section 167 of the Act to seek compensation under Section 166 of the Act resulting in award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. Undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. The owner is therefore, tortfeasor. 

Section 168: [V. Gopala Gowda & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Insurers limit of liability -  Held, It is well settled that the liability of the Insurance Company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. Is for the Insurance Company to show that the Insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. That issue was neither raised before the Tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. Thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under Section 149 (1) of the Act. Where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the Act, instead of seeking compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act. On facts, held, The material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the Tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. The settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye. Compensation of Rs.4,15,150/- awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs.8,20,000/-.  -  ' 4. The question whether an award is vitiated by failure to give reasons has been considered by the 5 Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. it was held that failure to give reasons in the award does not conslitute violation of principles of natural justice and that the -award cannot be set aside on that ground unless parties have contemplated in the agreement that the award should contain reasons. It is a well known rule of construction that if a certain interpretation has been uniformly put upon the meaning of a statute and transactions such as dealings inproperly and making of contracts have taken place on the basis of that interpretation, the Court will not put a different interpretation upon it which will materially affect those transactions. There is well established authority for the. Any lapse in that behalf might lend itself to and perhaps justify, the legitimate criticism that Government failed to provide against possible prejudice to public interest. Chandra Sekhara Rao, to the effect that unreasoned award is bad does not help him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Y. Sivarama Sastry, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Govt. Pleader for Arbitration and ;M Chandrasekhara Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1995-06-14',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dasaratha Rama Reddy, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. As both the writ petitions raise common points, they are disposed of by a common judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">W.P. No. 11049 of 1990 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner entered into agreement with the second respondent on 23-2-1983 for sale of cement manufacturing machinery. Clause 12(2) of the agreement provided for referring any dispute, that may arise under it, to arbitration. As certain disputes arose, the petitioner nominated Justice Rege, retired Judge of High Court of Bombay, as arbitrator, while the second respondent appointed late Jusfice Krishna Rao, as arbitrator. Justice G. Venkat Rarna Sastry was appointed as O.S. No. 2 off 988, in the Court of Additional Chief Judge (Temporary), Hyderabad, as Umpire. The arbitrators gave unanimous award on 2-2-1987 granting petitioner Rs. 17,74,858/- together with interest of Rs. 3,05,006,/- but did not give reasons. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 249 of 1987, later renumbered under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the.'Act') to make the award rule of the Court. The second respondent filed O.P. No. 387 of 1987, later renumbered as O.P. No. 41 of 1988, underSection 30 of the Act to set aside the award. The Court below pronounced ex parte judgment on 8-11-1988. LA. No. 453 of 1988 filed by the second respondent to set aside the ex parte decree was allowed on 1-2-1989 and C.R.P. No. 1043 of 1989 filed against the same by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 24-11-1989. When the matter was thus sent back to the City Civil Court and was pending there, A. P. Amendment Act 1 of 1990 adding provisos to Sections 14(1) and 17 of the Act came into force with effect from 19-2-1990. Based on this amendment, the Civil Court on 3-7-1990 remanded the mailer to the arbitrators to give reasons for the award. But Justice Krishna Rao, arbitrator, nominated by second respondent refused to act as arbitrator and in his place Sri K. Jagannatha Rao, Advocate, was appointed as arbitrator on 26-7-1990. At this stage, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 11049 of 1990 questioning the vires of proviso to Section 14 and 1st proviso to Section 17 introduced by Act I of 1990 and obtained stay of all further proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the amendment making all awards passed without giving reasons as invalid without making any classification of agreements is arbitrary and that in any event as proviso to Section 14 is not retrospective, the 1st proviso to Section 17 cannot be applied to the award passed prior to 19-2-1990. I shall take up first the alternative contention of Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry. To appreciate the contention of Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, it is necessary to refer to the objects and reasons of the amendment, proviso to Section 14 and 1st proviso to Section 17 of the Act. They read as follows;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Statement of Objects and Reasons </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The provisions of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> are not specific that the award shall give reasons. In the absence of a reasoned award, the parties affected by it remain unaware of how the arbitrators reached their decision. The process is also susceptible of gross abuse affording little or no legal remedy to the parties. The present trend of law in United Kingdom and other countries is towardspassing a reasoned award. Accordingly, the Government considered it desirable to amend the provisions of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> to enjoin upon the Arbitrators to adduce reasons in the awards passed by them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is accordingly decided to amend Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a>:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> ..........' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Proviso to Section 14(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Provided that the arbitrators or umpire shall give reasons for any award made under this section and no award shall be valid unlessreasons therefor are given as aforesaid.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1st Proviso to Section 17 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Provided that where an award pending in the Court at the commencement of the Arbitration (Anrjhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1990 or an award filed in the Court, thereafter does not contain reasons therefor as required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 the Court shall not proceed to pronounce the judgment according to the award, but shall remit the award to the arbitrators or the umpire forgiving reasons therefor as required by the said proviso and thereupon the arbitrators or umpire shall, within thirty days from' the date of remittance of the award to them by the Court give reasons for the award and file the same in the Court.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The question whether an award is vitiated by failure to give reasons has been considered by the 5 Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors, AIR 1990 SC 1426 where, after reviewing entire case law. it was held that failure to give reasons in the award does not conslitute violation of principles of natural justice and that the -award cannot be set aside on that ground unless parties have contemplated in the agreement that the award should contain reasons. The Supreme Court held as follows (Paras 33 to 37): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The question which arises for consideration in these cases is whether it is appropriate for this Court to take the view that any awardpassed under the Act, that is, the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> is liable to be remitted or set aside solelytm the ground that the arbitrator has not given reasons thus virtually introducing by ajudicial verdict an amendment to the Act when it has not been the law for nearly 7/8 decades. The people in India as in oilier parts . of the world such as England, U.S.A. and Australia have become accustomed to the system of settlement of disputes by private arbitration and have accepted awards made against them as binding even though no reasons have been given in support of the awards a long time. They have attached more importance to the element of finality of the awards than their legality. Of course, when reasons are given in support of the awards and those reasons disclose any error apparent on the face of the record people have not refrained from questioning such awards before the Courts. It is not as if that people are without any remedy at all in cases where they find that it is in their interest to require the arbitrator to give reasons for the award. In cases where reasons are required, it is open to the parties to the dispute to introduce a term either in the arbitration agreement or in the deed of submission requiring the arbitrators . to give reasons in support of the awards. When the parties to the dispute insist upon reasons being given, the arbitrator is, as already observed earlier, under an obligation to give reasons. But there may be many arbitrations in which parties to the dispute may not relish the disclosure of the reasons for the awards. In the circumstances and particularly having regard to the Various reasons given by the Indian Law Commission for not recommending to the Government to introduce an amendment in the Act requiring the arbitrators to give reasons for their awards we fee! that it may not be appropriate to take the view that all awards which do not contain reasons should either be remitted or set aside. A decision on the question argued before us involves a question of legislative policy which should be left to the decision of Parliament. It is a well known rule of construction that if a certain interpretation has been uniformly put upon the meaning of a statute and transactions such as dealings inproperly and making of contracts have taken place on the basis of that interpretation, the Court will not put a different interpretation upon it which will materially affect those transactions. We may refer here to the decision of the Court of Appeal rendered by Lord Evershed M.R. in Brownsea Haven Properties v. Poole Corpn. (1958) Ch 574 in which it is observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'There is well established authority for the. view that a decision of long standing, on the basis of which many persons will in the course of time have arranged their affairs should not lightly be disturbed by a superior Court not strictly bound itself by the decision.' Courts should be slow in taking decisions tf which will have the effect of shaking rights and titles which have been founded through a long time upon the conviction that a particular interpretation of law is the legal and proper one and is one which will not be departed from.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is no doubt true that in the decisions pertaining to Administrative Law, this Court in some cases has observed that the giving of reasons in an administrative decision is a rule of natural justice by an extension of the prevailing rule. It would be in the interest 'of the world of commerce that the said rule is confined to the area to Administrative Law. We do appreciate the contention urged on behalf of the parties who contend that it would be made obligatory on the part of the arbitrator to give reasons for the award, that there is no justification to leave the small area covered by the law of arbitration out of the general rule that the decision of every judicial and quasi-judicial body should be supported by reasons. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that what applies generally to settlement of disputes by authorities governed by public law need not be extended to all cases arising under private law such as these arising under the law of arbitration which is intended for settlement of private disputes. As stated elsewhere in the course of this judgment if the parties to the dispute feel that reasons should be given by the arbitrators for the awards it is within their power to insist upon such reasons being given at the time when they enter intoarbitration agreement or sign the deed of submission. It is significant that although nearly a decade ago the Indian Law Commission submitted its report on the law of arbitration specifically mentioning therein that there was no necessity to amend the law of arbitration requiring the arbitrators to give reasons, Parliament has not chosen to take any step in the direction of the amendment of the law of arbitration. Even after the passing of the English Arbitration Act, 1979 unless a Court requires the arbitrator to give reasons for the award (vide sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 1 of the English Arbitration Act, 1979), an award is not liable to be set aside merely on the ground that no reasons have been given in support of it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is true that in two cases one decided by the High Court of Delhi and another decided by the High Court of Orissa there are some observations to the effect that it would be in the interests of justice if the arbitrators are required to give reasons for their awards because in recent years the moral standards of arbitrators are going down. But generally this Court and all.the High Courts have taken the view that merely because the reasons are not given an award is not liable to be remitted or set aside except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission, or an order made by the Court such as the one under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act or the statute governing the arbitration requires that the arbitrator or umpire should give reasons for the award. The arbitrators or umpire have passed the awards which are involved in cases before us relying on the law declared by this Court that the awards could not be questioned merely on the ground that they have not given reasons. At the same time it cannot also be said that all the awards are contrary to law and justice. In this situation it would be wholly unjust to pass an order either remitting or setting aside the awards, merely on the ground that no reasons are given in them, except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission or an order made by the Court such as the one under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act or the statute governing the arbitration required that the arbitrator or the umpire should givereasons for the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> There is, however, one aspect of non-speaking awards in non-statutory arbitrations to which Government and Governmental authorities are parties that compel attention. The trappings of a body which discharges judicial functions and requires to act in accordance with law with their concomitant obligations for reasoned decisions are not attracted to a private adjudication of the nature of arbitration as the latter, as we have noticed earlier, is not supposed to exert the State's sovereign judicial power. But arbitral awards in disputes to which the State and its instrumentalities are parties affect public interest and the matter or the manner in which Government and its instrumentalities allow their interest to be affected by such arbitral adjudications involve larger questions of policy and public interest. Government and its instrumentalities cannot simply allow large financial interests of the State to be prejudicially affected by non-reviewable --except in the limited way allowed by the Statute -- non-speaking arbitral awards. Indeed, this branch of the system of dispute resolution has, of late, acquired a certain degree of notoriety by the manner in which'in many cases the financial interests of Government have come to suffer by awards which have raised eye-brows by doubts as to their rectitude and propriety. It will not be justifiable for Governments or their instrumen- talities to enter into arbitration agreements which do not expressly stipulate the rendering of reasoned and speaking awards, Governments and their instrumentalities should as a matter of policy and public interest -- if not as a compulsion of law -- ensure that wherever they enter into agreements for resolution of disputes by resort to private arbitrations, the requirement of speaking awards is expressly stipulated and ensured. It is for Governments and their instrumentalities to ensure in future this requirement as a matter of policy in the larger public interest. Any lapse in that behalf might lend itself to and perhaps justify, the legitimate criticism that Government failed to provide against possible prejudice to public interest.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court further summarised as follows at para 38 : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Having given our careful and anxious consideration to the contentions urged by the parties we feel that law should be allowed to remain as it is until the competent legislature amends the law. In the result we hold that an award passed under the Arbitration Act is not liable to be remitted or set aside merely on the ground that no reasons have been given in its support except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission or an order made by the Court such as the one under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act or the statute governing the arbitration requiies that the arbitrator or the umpire should give reasons for the award. These cases will now go back to the Division Bench for disposal in accordance with law and the view expressed by us in this decision.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of this pronouncement of the 5 Judge Bench, the decision in Food Corpn. of India v. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., : [1988]3SCR366 rendered by two Judges Bench, cited by Sri M. Chandra Sekhara Rao, to the effect that unreasoned award is bad does not help him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is significant to note that Proviso to Section 14(1) is not given retrospective effect, while 1st Proviso to Section 17 invalidates any award pending in the Court at the commencement of the Act i.e., 19-2-1990, or any award filed in the Court subsequently and which does not contain reasons and directs that such awards must be remitted to the arbitrators. There is apparant conflict between the two provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The two provisos can be reconciled by interpreting the 1st proviso to Section 17 as referring to awards passed in respect of agreements which contain a stipulation that reasons must be given in the award. Such awards will be invalid even dehors proviso to Section 14(1) as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors (AIR 1990 SC 1426) (supra). Then the question arises why the Legislature has intervened to declare that they are invalid,which are even otherwise invalid. The reason is obvious. The Legislature wanted to give effect to the settled position of law as decided by the Supreme Court in Bungo Steel Furniture pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, : [1967]1SCR633 and referred to in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors (AIR 1990 SC 1426) (supra) (hat awards which do not give reasons required to be given as per the agreement are invalid. The Legislature has also declared that in such circumstances, the Court has no option but to remit the matter to arbitrators. Before amendment, it was-open to Court either to remit or to decide the matter itself on merits. If the intention is otherwise, the Legislature would have given retrospective effect to proviso to Section 14 also, which would have resulted in setting aside number of awards and remitting back to arbitrators. The Legislature obviously wanted to avoid this.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The matter can be looked at from another angle. Suppose the parties entered into agreement before commencement of the amendment without making any stipulation that reasons must be given in the award, as all the provisions of the Act apply to awards by virtue of Section 47 of (he Act and as the Act, as it then stood, did not require the arbitrator to give any reasons for the award, any award passed before 19-2-1990 without giving reasons will not be invalid as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors (AIR 1990 SC 1426) (supra) since the parties did not contemplate that reasons should be given. The first proviso to Section 17 does not apply to such award. On the other hand, if the award has not been passed by 19-2-1990. proviso to Section 14(1) will govern the award and if reasons are not given, it will be invalid as per proviso to Section 14(1) even though the parties did not contemplate reasoned award. Consequently, under Section 17, the Court has no option but to remit the matter to the arbitrator. Now, let us taken another example where parties have stipulated in the agreement entered into before 19-2-1990 that reasons must be given in the award. Even de-hors proviso to Section 14(1), any award passed before 19-2-1990without giving reasons will be invalid and the Court earlier may either remit the matter to the arbitrator for giving reasons in support of the award or itself pass order on merits. But the first proviso to Section 17 now leaves no discretion to the Court which has to send back the matter to the arbitrator to give reasons in support of the award. As regards agreements entered into after the amendment, even in the absence of any stipulation between the parties about the necessity lo give reasoned awards, as the Act governs the award by virtue of Section 47, the award must comply with proviso to Section 14(1) and give reasons and if any unreasoned award is passed, the Court has to set aside the same and remit to arbilrator under first proviso to Section 17. Thus the intention of she Legislature is to give effect to the intention of the parties in respect of awards passed prior to 19-2-1990 and to make the passing of reasoned awards after 19-2-1990 irrespective of intention of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. By this harmoncous construction of the two provisos, no prejudice is caused to the parlies, and at the same time, it will not result in setting aside numerous awards passed prior lo 19-2-1990. No doubt, the first proviso to Section 17 is not happily worded. The expression 'as required by proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14' gives rise to difficulty and ambiguity. The draftsman must have used these words by way of description of the awards, which requires reasons to be given. As already seen, even awards passed before amendment had to contain reasons if the agreement contemplates reasons to be given. On the other hand, if this expression is extended to cover all awards, it will amount to giving retrospective effect to proviso to Section 14(1), which the Legislature itself did not give.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. M. Chandrasekhara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the first proviso to Section 17 applies to all awards pending at the commencement of the Amendment Act or awards filed in Courts subsequently but does not apply to awards made rule of the Court before commencement of the Act and relied on the decisions inSuperintending Engineer v. Gayatri Engineers Company, (1991) -1 Andh LT 658, State of A.P. v. P. Lakshmu Reddi, (1993) 3 Andh LT 694, Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd. v. Industrial Devlp. Corpn. of Orissa Ltd., : [1993]1SCR229 and Goa. Daman & Diu Housing Board v. Ramakant V. P. Darvot-kar, : [1991]3SCR904 . In Superintending Engineer v. Gayalri Engineers Company (supra), a division Bench of this Court consisting of Justice Amareswari and Justice P.L.N. Sarma held that the 1st proviso to Section 17 applies only to awards pending at the commencement of the Act or awards filed in Courts subsequently, but not to awards made rule of the Court before the commencement of the Amendment and which are subject matter of appeals or revisions. To the similar effect is the decision of the Division Bench consisting of Justice G. Radhakrishna Rao and Justice P. Ramakrishnam Raju in State of A. P. v. P. Lakhshmu Reddi (supra). These decisions do not help the respondent as the question that arises in this case has neither been raised nor decided in those cases. In Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd. v. Industrial Devlp. Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (supra), the question was what is meant by reasoned award. Setting out conclusions on issues without discussing the reasons for such conclusion was held to be not reasoned or speaking award. This decision also is not of any lassistance to the responded. Similarly, the decision in Goa, Daman & Diu Housing Board v. Ramakant V. P. Darvotkar : [1991]3SCR904 (supra) interpreting Section 16 of the Act is not relevant for the purpose of this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. To sum up, unreasoned awards affected by the amendment can be classified as follows :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If reasons are stipulated in agreement</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If reasons are not stipulated in agreement</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Before 19-2-1990After 19-2-1990Before 19-2-1990 After 19-2-I990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Passed and filed in the Court before 19-2-1990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Invalid with consequential result of eitherremitting thematter toArbitrator ordecision bythe Court it self on merits</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Invalid with the consequential result of remitting the matter toArbitrator</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Valid Valid Not affected by the amendment</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Passed before amendment but filed after 19-2-1990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Not applicable-do-Not applicable-do-passed and filed in the Court after 19-2-I990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Not applicable-do-Not applicable Invalid irrespective of agreement with the consequential result of remitting the matter to Arbitrator<p style="text-align: justify;">11. In the instant case, as it is the admitted case of the parties that the agreement did not provide for reasons in the award; applying the above principles, I hold that the award passed on 2-2-1987, before commencement of the amendment Act i.e., 19-2-1990, is valid even though reasons were not given and neither proviso to Section 14(1) nor first proviso to Section M applies to such award. In view ofthis, I need not go into the question of vires of two provisos. No other point is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">W.P. No. 12938 of 1990 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The petitioner entered into agreement with the 2nd respondent on 20-7-1981 for supply of cement manufacturing machinery. Clause 11(2) of the agreement provided for referring any dispute, that may arise under it, to arbitration. As certain disputes arose, the petitioner nominated Justice M. S. Apte, a retired Judge of High Court of Bombay, as arbitrator, while the second respondent appointed Sri Y. Ratnakar, Advocate, as arbitrator, Justice V. D. Tuljapurkar, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court was appointed as Umpire. As there was disagreement between the two arbitrators, the matter was referredfor determination by the Umpire who passed award on 22-12-1989 granting petitioner Rs.4,08,084/- together with interest of Rs. 2,82,000-/- but did not give reasons. The petitioner Company filed O.S. No. 99 of 1990 before the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,under Section 14(2) of the Act for making the award Rule of the Court When the matter was pending in the Civil Court, A. P. Amendment Act 1 of 1990 adding provisos to Sections 14(1) and 17 of the Act came into force with effect from 19-2-1990. Apprehending that in pursuance of proviso to Section 14(1) and 1st proviso to Section 17, the third respondent would remit the award to the Umpire for furnishing reasons, the petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the vires of proviso to Section 14(1) and 1st proviso to Section 17 introduced by Act 1 of 1990 and obtained stay of all further proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised the same contentions as urged in W.P. No. 11049 of 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As already held by me, award passed before cormmencement of the amendment Act i.e:, 19-2-1990, is valid even though reasons are not given, if the agreement did not provide for reasons in award. It is the admitted case of the parties that the agreement did not provide for reasons in the award. Thus, in the instant case neither proviso to Section 14(1) nor first proviso to Section 17 applies. In view of this, I need not go into the question of vires of two provisos. Accordingly, this writ petition also has to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed and the Additional Chief Judge, Hederabad and IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, are directed to proceed with O.S. No. 2 of 1988 & O.P. No.41 of 1988 and O.S. No.99 of 1990 respectively and dispose them of in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration Act without reference to the Amendment Act 1 of 1990. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Petitions allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1996AP167',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Andhra Pradesh and Others',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '424011'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'M/S. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., Pune Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 14(2',
			(int) 1 => 'the Arbitration Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 14',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 14',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 14',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 8 => 'the Arbitration Act',
			(int) 9 => 'the Arbitration Act',
			(int) 10 => 'the Arbitration Act',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 17 'Provided',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 14',
			(int) 13 => 'Paras 33',
			(int) 14 => 'the Arbitration Act',
			(int) 15 => 'the English Arbitration Act',
			(int) 16 => 'Section 1',
			(int) 17 => 'Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act',
			(int) 18 => 'Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act',
			(int) 19 => 'the Arbitration Act',
			(int) 20 => 'Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act',
			(int) 21 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 22 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 23 => 'Section 14',
			(int) 24 => 'Section 47',
			(int) 25 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 26 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 27 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 28 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 29 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 30 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 31 => 'Section 47',
			(int) 32 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 33 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 34 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 35 => 'Section 14'',
			(int) 36 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 37 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 38 => 'the Amendment Act',
			(int) 39 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 40 => 'Section 16 of the Act',
			(int) 41 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 42 => 'Section 14(2',
			(int) 43 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 44 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 45 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 46 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 47 => 'Act 1 of 1990',
			(int) 48 => 'Section 14(1',
			(int) 49 => 'Section 17',
			(int) 50 => 'Arbitration Act',
			(int) 51 => 'the Amendment Act 1 of 1990'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '11049 of 1990 2',
			(int) 1 => '1987',
			(int) 2 => '1987',
			(int) 3 => '1988',
			(int) 4 => '8-11-1988',
			(int) 5 => '1988',
			(int) 6 => '1989',
			(int) 7 => '24-11-1989',
			(int) 8 => '1990',
			(int) 9 => '1990',
			(int) 10 => '11049 of 1990',
			(int) 11 => '1990',
			(int) 12 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 13 => '1940',
			(int) 14 => '1940',
			(int) 15 => '1990',
			(int) 16 => 'thirty days',
			(int) 17 => '1426',
			(int) 18 => '37',
			(int) 19 => '1940',
			(int) 20 => 'nearly 7/8 decades',
			(int) 21 => '1958',
			(int) 22 => 'nearly a decade ago',
			(int) 23 => '1979',
			(int) 24 => '1979',
			(int) 25 => 'recent years',
			(int) 26 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 27 => '1426',
			(int) 28 => '1967]1SCR633',
			(int) 29 => '1426',
			(int) 30 => '1426',
			(int) 31 => '1991',
			(int) 32 => '1993',
			(int) 33 => '1990',
			(int) 34 => '1990 12',
			(int) 35 => '22-12-1989',
			(int) 36 => '1990',
			(int) 37 => '1990',
			(int) 38 => '11049',
			(int) 39 => '1990',
			(int) 40 => '1988',
			(int) 41 => '1990'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'second',
			(int) 1 => 'second',
			(int) 2 => 'second',
			(int) 3 => 'second',
			(int) 4 => 'second',
			(int) 5 => 'first',
			(int) 6 => 'first',
			(int) 7 => 'first',
			(int) 8 => 'first',
			(int) 9 => 'first',
			(int) 10 => 'first',
			(int) 11 => 'first',
			(int) 12 => '2nd',
			(int) 13 => 'second',
			(int) 14 => '1st',
			(int) 15 => 'third',
			(int) 16 => '1st',
			(int) 17 => 'first'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '23',
			(int) 1 => '2',
			(int) 2 => '988',
			(int) 3 => '2',
			(int) 4 => '3,05,006,/-',
			(int) 5 => '249',
			(int) 6 => '387',
			(int) 7 => '41',
			(int) 8 => '30',
			(int) 9 => '453',
			(int) 10 => '1',
			(int) 11 => '17',
			(int) 12 => '3',
			(int) 13 => '26',
			(int) 14 => '19-2-1990',
			(int) 15 => '1',
			(int) 16 => '2',
			(int) 17 => '17',
			(int) 18 => '1',
			(int) 19 => '5',
			(int) 20 => '574',
			(int) 21 => '5',
			(int) 22 => '6',
			(int) 23 => 'two',
			(int) 24 => 'one',
			(int) 25 => '38',
			(int) 26 => '5',
			(int) 27 => '1988]3SCR366',
			(int) 28 => 'two',
			(int) 29 => '19',
			(int) 30 => 'two',
			(int) 31 => 'two',
			(int) 32 => '19-2-1990',
			(int) 33 => '19',
			(int) 34 => '19-2-1990',
			(int) 35 => '19',
			(int) 36 => 'two',
			(int) 37 => '19-2-1990',
			(int) 38 => '1',
			(int) 39 => '658',
			(int) 40 => '3',
			(int) 41 => '694',
			(int) 42 => '1993]1SCR229',
			(int) 43 => '1991]3SCR904',
			(int) 44 => '1991]3SCR904',
			(int) 45 => '19-2-1990After',
			(int) 46 => '19-2-1990',
			(int) 47 => '19',
			(int) 48 => '19',
			(int) 49 => '19-2-1990Not',
			(int) 50 => '19',
			(int) 51 => '2',
			(int) 52 => '19',
			(int) 53 => 'two',
			(int) 54 => '20',
			(int) 55 => 'two',
			(int) 56 => '17',
			(int) 57 => '1990.14',
			(int) 58 => '19',
			(int) 59 => 'two',
			(int) 60 => '2'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rege',
			(int) 1 => 'Krishna Rao',
			(int) 2 => 'G. Venkat Rarna Sastry',
			(int) 3 => 'A. P. Amendment Act 1',
			(int) 4 => 'Krishna Rao',
			(int) 5 => 'Sri K. Jagannatha Rao',
			(int) 6 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry',
			(int) 7 => 'Reasons',
			(int) 8 => 'Bench',
			(int) 9 => 'Evershed M.R.',
			(int) 10 => 'Poole Corpn',
			(int) 11 => 'Administrative Law',
			(int) 12 => 'Administrative Law',
			(int) 13 => 'Bench',
			(int) 14 => 'Bench',
			(int) 15 => 'Sri M. Chandra Sekhara Rao',
			(int) 16 => 'him.5',
			(int) 17 => 'M. Chandrasekhara Rao',
			(int) 18 => 'P. Lakshmu',
			(int) 19 => 'Industrial Devlp',
			(int) 20 => 'Corpn',
			(int) 21 => 'Ramakant V. P. Darvot-kar',
			(int) 22 => 'Bench',
			(int) 23 => 'Amareswari',
			(int) 24 => 'Sarma',
			(int) 25 => 'G. Radhakrishna Rao',
			(int) 26 => 'P. Ramakrishnam Raju',
			(int) 27 => 'Industrial Devlp',
			(int) 28 => 'Corpn',
			(int) 29 => 'Ramakant V. P. Darvotkar',
			(int) 30 => 'M. S. Apte',
			(int) 31 => 'Sri Y. Ratnakar',
			(int) 32 => 'V. D. Tuljapurkar',
			(int) 33 => 'A. P. Amendment Act 1',
			(int) 34 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'High Court',
			(int) 1 => 'the Court of Additional',
			(int) 2 => 'Hyderabad',
			(int) 3 => 'Umpire',
			(int) 4 => 'O.S. No',
			(int) 5 => 'Court',
			(int) 6 => 'O.P. No',
			(int) 7 => 'O.P. No',
			(int) 8 => 'Court',
			(int) 9 => 'C.R.P. No',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'the City Civil Court',
			(int) 12 => 'the Civil Court',
			(int) 13 => 'W.P.',
			(int) 14 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry',
			(int) 15 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry',
			(int) 16 => 'Arbitrators',
			(int) 17 => 'Sections 14',
			(int) 18 => 'Court',
			(int) 19 => 'the Arbitration (Anrjhra Pradesh Amendment) Act',
			(int) 20 => 'Court',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Supreme Court',
			(int) 25 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
			(int) 26 => 'AIR 1990',
			(int) 27 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 28 => 'Court',
			(int) 29 => 'the Indian Law Commission',
			(int) 30 => 'Government',
			(int) 31 => 'Parliament',
			(int) 32 => 'Court',
			(int) 33 => 'the Court of Appeal',
			(int) 34 => 'Court',
			(int) 35 => 'Court',
			(int) 36 => 'the Indian Law Commission',
			(int) 37 => 'Parliament',
			(int) 38 => 'Court',
			(int) 39 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 40 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 41 => 'Court',
			(int) 42 => 'all.the High Courts',
			(int) 43 => 'Court',
			(int) 44 => 'Court',
			(int) 45 => 'Court',
			(int) 46 => 'Government',
			(int) 47 => 'State',
			(int) 48 => 'State',
			(int) 49 => 'Government',
			(int) 50 => 'State',
			(int) 51 => 'Statute',
			(int) 52 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 53 => 'Court',
			(int) 54 => 'Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.',
			(int) 55 => '1st Proviso to Section 17',
			(int) 56 => 'Court',
			(int) 57 => 'Court',
			(int) 58 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 59 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
			(int) 60 => 'AIR 1990 SC',
			(int) 61 => 'Legislature',
			(int) 62 => 'Legislature',
			(int) 63 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 64 => 'Bungo Steel Furniture',
			(int) 65 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 66 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
			(int) 67 => 'AIR 1990 SC',
			(int) 68 => 'Legislature',
			(int) 69 => 'Court',
			(int) 70 => 'Court',
			(int) 71 => 'Legislature',
			(int) 72 => 'Legislature',
			(int) 73 => 'Act',
			(int) 74 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 75 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
			(int) 76 => 'AIR 1990 SC',
			(int) 77 => 'Court',
			(int) 78 => 'Court',
			(int) 79 => 'Court',
			(int) 80 => 'Court',
			(int) 81 => 'Legislature',
			(int) 82 => 'Legislature',
			(int) 83 => 'Courts',
			(int) 84 => 'Court',
			(int) 85 => 'Engineer',
			(int) 86 => 'Gayatri Engineers Company',
			(int) 87 => 'State',
			(int) 88 => 'A.P.',
			(int) 89 => 'Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd.',
			(int) 90 => 'Orissa Ltd.',
			(int) 91 => 'Goa.',
			(int) 92 => 'Daman & Diu Housing Board',
			(int) 93 => 'Superintending Engineer',
			(int) 94 => 'Gayalri Engineers Company',
			(int) 95 => 'Court',
			(int) 96 => 'Justice',
			(int) 97 => 'Courts',
			(int) 98 => 'Court',
			(int) 99 => 'Amendment',
			(int) 100 => 'Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd.',
			(int) 101 => 'Orissa Ltd.',
			(int) 102 => 'Goa, Daman & Diu Housing Board',
			(int) 103 => 'Court',
			(int) 104 => 'Court',
			(int) 105 => 'Court',
			(int) 106 => 'Section M',
			(int) 107 => 'High Court',
			(int) 108 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 109 => 'Umpire',
			(int) 110 => 'Umpire',
			(int) 111 => 'O.S. No',
			(int) 112 => 'City Civil Court',
			(int) 113 => 'Hyderabad',
			(int) 114 => 'Court',
			(int) 115 => 'the Civil Court',
			(int) 116 => 'Umpire',
			(int) 117 => 'Hederabad',
			(int) 118 => 'City Civil Court',
			(int) 119 => 'Hyderabad',
			(int) 120 => 'O.S. No',
			(int) 121 => 'O.S. No.99'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Bombay',
			(int) 1 => 'O.S.',
			(int) 2 => 'LA',
			(int) 3 => 'United Kingdom',
			(int) 4 => 'Proviso',
			(int) 5 => 'India',
			(int) 6 => 'England',
			(int) 7 => 'U.S.A.',
			(int) 8 => 'Australia',
			(int) 9 => 'us',
			(int) 10 => 'Delhi',
			(int) 11 => 'Governmental',
			(int) 12 => 'India',
			(int) 13 => 'Proviso',
			(int) 14 => 'Bombay'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '19-2-',
			(int) 1 => '19-2-1990',
			(int) 2 => '19-2-1990',
			(int) 3 => '19-2-',
			(int) 4 => '19-2-'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Objects'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Brownsea Haven Properties',
			(int) 1 => 'Food Corpn'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '424011',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 14 (1) and (2), 17, 20, 21, 30, 34 and 47; Arbitration (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1990',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. Nos. 11049 and 12938 of 1990',
			'appellant' => 'M/S. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., Pune',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'M/S. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., Pune Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Arbitration - justified award - Proviso to Section 14 (1) and Proviso 1st (as added by A. P. Act of 1990) to Section 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 - certain award without reasons given by arbitrator relating to certain dispute - award challenged - certain amendments relating to Provisos to Sections 14 (1) and 17 introduced during pendency of suit in Civil Court - petition filed challenging scope of Provisos - award passed before introduction of Amendment Act - agreement did not provide for any reasons - award valid even though reasons not given - held, Provisos to Sections 14 (1) and 17 not to be applied as award given without reasons.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (59 OF 1988)Section 149 (2): [V. Gopala Gowda & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Insurers entitlement to defend the action  Joint appeal by insured and insurer - Held, The language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of Section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. It shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, and no other grounds are available to it. The insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other grounds, which are available to the insured. If insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer and will be negation of the intention of the Legislature and annihilate mandate of the provisions of Sections 170 and 149 of the Act. The insured can pursue appeal only after giving up the insurer as the appellant and not otherwise. In the instant case, the insurer has not withdrawn from party array but has remained prosecuting the appeal with the insured on the grounds which are available only to the insured. Therefore, the joint appeal as filed by the insured and the insurer is not maintainable. 

Section 166: [V. Gopala Gowda & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Claim for compensation  Accident due to mechanical defect in the vehicle  Held, It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in an accident, which occurred during the course of his employment, albeit due to his negligence but law does not render him remediless. Statutory right is conferred on him, accruing by virtue of his employment under insured to claim compensation under Workmens Compensation Act. The insurer is statutorily duty bound to discharge the liability of the owner of the vehicle, to pay such compensation to the employee, as mandated under the provisions of Section 149 of the Act. The right of an injured employee or his dependents as the case may be to be compensated, when injury is suffered or death occurs during his employment, is recognised not only under Workmens Compensation Act, but also under benevolent provisions under Section 166 and 167 of the M.V. Act. The right of driver to seek compensation is not restricted only to the Workmens Compensation Act, it has been enlarged to enable such person to seek just compensation (Sections 166 and 168), conferring upon him the right of election engrafted under Section 167 of the Act to choose either of the two Forum. The only defence which the insurer could take is limit of its liability as enumerated under Section 147 of the Act, leading to contest, inter alia, only between insured and insurer and does not impact claimants right to recover the compensation determined by the Tribunal which crystallizes into enforceable right against both. In the instant case, the claimant/driver has exercised right of election under Section 167 of the Act to seek compensation under Section 166 of the Act resulting in award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. Undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. The owner is therefore, tortfeasor. 

Section 168: [V. Gopala Gowda & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Insurers limit of liability -  Held, It is well settled that the liability of the Insurance Company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. Is for the Insurance Company to show that the Insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. That issue was neither raised before the Tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. Thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under Section 149 (1) of the Act. Where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the Act, instead of seeking compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act. On facts, held, The material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the Tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. The settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye. Compensation of Rs.4,15,150/- awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs.8,20,000/-.  -  ' 4. The question whether an award is vitiated by failure to give reasons has been considered by the 5 Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. it was held that failure to give reasons in the award does not conslitute violation of principles of natural justice and that the -award cannot be set aside on that ground unless parties have contemplated in the agreement that the award should contain reasons. It is a well known rule of construction that if a certain interpretation has been uniformly put upon the meaning of a statute and transactions such as dealings inproperly and making of contracts have taken place on the basis of that interpretation, the Court will not put a different interpretation upon it which will materially affect those transactions. There is well established authority for the. Any lapse in that behalf might lend itself to and perhaps justify, the legitimate criticism that Government failed to provide against possible prejudice to public interest. Chandra Sekhara Rao, to the effect that unreasoned award is bad does not help him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Y. Sivarama Sastry, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Govt. Pleader for Arbitration and ;M Chandrasekhara Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1995-06-14',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Dasaratha Rama Reddy, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. As both the writ petitions raise common points, they are disposed of by a common judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">W.P. No. 11049 of 1990 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner entered into agreement with the second respondent on 23-2-1983 for sale of cement manufacturing machinery. Clause 12(2) of the agreement provided for referring any dispute, that may arise under it, to arbitration. As certain disputes arose, the petitioner nominated Justice Rege, retired Judge of High Court of Bombay, as arbitrator, while the second respondent appointed late Jusfice Krishna Rao, as arbitrator. Justice G. Venkat Rarna Sastry was appointed as O.S. No. 2 off 988, in the Court of Additional Chief Judge (Temporary), Hyderabad, as Umpire. The arbitrators gave unanimous award on 2-2-1987 granting petitioner Rs. 17,74,858/- together with interest of Rs. 3,05,006,/- but did not give reasons. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 249 of 1987, later renumbered under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the.'Act') to make the award rule of the Court. The second respondent filed O.P. No. 387 of 1987, later renumbered as O.P. No. 41 of 1988, underSection 30 of the Act to set aside the award. The Court below pronounced ex parte judgment on 8-11-1988. LA. No. 453 of 1988 filed by the second respondent to set aside the ex parte decree was allowed on 1-2-1989 and C.R.P. No. 1043 of 1989 filed against the same by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 24-11-1989. When the matter was thus sent back to the City Civil Court and was pending there, A. P. Amendment Act 1 of 1990 adding provisos to Sections 14(1) and 17 of the Act came into force with effect from 19-2-1990. Based on this amendment, the Civil Court on 3-7-1990 remanded the mailer to the arbitrators to give reasons for the award. But Justice Krishna Rao, arbitrator, nominated by second respondent refused to act as arbitrator and in his place Sri K. Jagannatha Rao, Advocate, was appointed as arbitrator on 26-7-1990. At this stage, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 11049 of 1990 questioning the vires of proviso to Section 14 and 1st proviso to Section 17 introduced by Act I of 1990 and obtained stay of all further proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the amendment making all awards passed without giving reasons as invalid without making any classification of agreements is arbitrary and that in any event as proviso to Section 14 is not retrospective, the 1st proviso to Section 17 cannot be applied to the award passed prior to 19-2-1990. I shall take up first the alternative contention of Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry. To appreciate the contention of Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, it is necessary to refer to the objects and reasons of the amendment, proviso to Section 14 and 1st proviso to Section 17 of the Act. They read as follows;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Statement of Objects and Reasons </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The provisions of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> are not specific that the award shall give reasons. In the absence of a reasoned award, the parties affected by it remain unaware of how the arbitrators reached their decision. The process is also susceptible of gross abuse affording little or no legal remedy to the parties. The present trend of law in United Kingdom and other countries is towardspassing a reasoned award. Accordingly, the Government considered it desirable to amend the provisions of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> to enjoin upon the Arbitrators to adduce reasons in the awards passed by them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is accordingly decided to amend Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a>:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> ..........' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Proviso to Section 14(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Provided that the arbitrators or umpire shall give reasons for any award made under this section and no award shall be valid unlessreasons therefor are given as aforesaid.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1st Proviso to Section 17 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Provided that where an award pending in the Court at the commencement of the Arbitration (Anrjhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1990 or an award filed in the Court, thereafter does not contain reasons therefor as required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 the Court shall not proceed to pronounce the judgment according to the award, but shall remit the award to the arbitrators or the umpire forgiving reasons therefor as required by the said proviso and thereupon the arbitrators or umpire shall, within thirty days from' the date of remittance of the award to them by the Court give reasons for the award and file the same in the Court.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The question whether an award is vitiated by failure to give reasons has been considered by the 5 Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors, AIR 1990 SC 1426 where, after reviewing entire case law. it was held that failure to give reasons in the award does not conslitute violation of principles of natural justice and that the -award cannot be set aside on that ground unless parties have contemplated in the agreement that the award should contain reasons. The Supreme Court held as follows (Paras 33 to 37): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The question which arises for consideration in these cases is whether it is appropriate for this Court to take the view that any awardpassed under the Act, that is, the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> is liable to be remitted or set aside solelytm the ground that the arbitrator has not given reasons thus virtually introducing by ajudicial verdict an amendment to the Act when it has not been the law for nearly 7/8 decades. The people in India as in oilier parts . of the world such as England, U.S.A. and Australia have become accustomed to the system of settlement of disputes by private arbitration and have accepted awards made against them as binding even though no reasons have been given in support of the awards a long time. They have attached more importance to the element of finality of the awards than their legality. Of course, when reasons are given in support of the awards and those reasons disclose any error apparent on the face of the record people have not refrained from questioning such awards before the Courts. It is not as if that people are without any remedy at all in cases where they find that it is in their interest to require the arbitrator to give reasons for the award. In cases where reasons are required, it is open to the parties to the dispute to introduce a term either in the arbitration agreement or in the deed of submission requiring the arbitrators . to give reasons in support of the awards. When the parties to the dispute insist upon reasons being given, the arbitrator is, as already observed earlier, under an obligation to give reasons. But there may be many arbitrations in which parties to the dispute may not relish the disclosure of the reasons for the awards. In the circumstances and particularly having regard to the Various reasons given by the Indian Law Commission for not recommending to the Government to introduce an amendment in the Act requiring the arbitrators to give reasons for their awards we fee! that it may not be appropriate to take the view that all awards which do not contain reasons should either be remitted or set aside. A decision on the question argued before us involves a question of legislative policy which should be left to the decision of Parliament. It is a well known rule of construction that if a certain interpretation has been uniformly put upon the meaning of a statute and transactions such as dealings inproperly and making of contracts have taken place on the basis of that interpretation, the Court will not put a different interpretation upon it which will materially affect those transactions. We may refer here to the decision of the Court of Appeal rendered by Lord Evershed M.R. in Brownsea Haven Properties v. Poole Corpn. (1958) Ch 574 in which it is observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'There is well established authority for the. view that a decision of long standing, on the basis of which many persons will in the course of time have arranged their affairs should not lightly be disturbed by a superior Court not strictly bound itself by the decision.' Courts should be slow in taking decisions tf which will have the effect of shaking rights and titles which have been founded through a long time upon the conviction that a particular interpretation of law is the legal and proper one and is one which will not be departed from.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is no doubt true that in the decisions pertaining to Administrative Law, this Court in some cases has observed that the giving of reasons in an administrative decision is a rule of natural justice by an extension of the prevailing rule. It would be in the interest 'of the world of commerce that the said rule is confined to the area to Administrative Law. We do appreciate the contention urged on behalf of the parties who contend that it would be made obligatory on the part of the arbitrator to give reasons for the award, that there is no justification to leave the small area covered by the law of arbitration out of the general rule that the decision of every judicial and quasi-judicial body should be supported by reasons. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that what applies generally to settlement of disputes by authorities governed by public law need not be extended to all cases arising under private law such as these arising under the law of arbitration which is intended for settlement of private disputes. As stated elsewhere in the course of this judgment if the parties to the dispute feel that reasons should be given by the arbitrators for the awards it is within their power to insist upon such reasons being given at the time when they enter intoarbitration agreement or sign the deed of submission. It is significant that although nearly a decade ago the Indian Law Commission submitted its report on the law of arbitration specifically mentioning therein that there was no necessity to amend the law of arbitration requiring the arbitrators to give reasons, Parliament has not chosen to take any step in the direction of the amendment of the law of arbitration. Even after the passing of the English Arbitration Act, 1979 unless a Court requires the arbitrator to give reasons for the award (vide sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 1 of the English Arbitration Act, 1979), an award is not liable to be set aside merely on the ground that no reasons have been given in support of it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is true that in two cases one decided by the High Court of Delhi and another decided by the High Court of Orissa there are some observations to the effect that it would be in the interests of justice if the arbitrators are required to give reasons for their awards because in recent years the moral standards of arbitrators are going down. But generally this Court and all.the High Courts have taken the view that merely because the reasons are not given an award is not liable to be remitted or set aside except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission, or an order made by the Court such as the one under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act or the statute governing the arbitration requires that the arbitrator or umpire should give reasons for the award. The arbitrators or umpire have passed the awards which are involved in cases before us relying on the law declared by this Court that the awards could not be questioned merely on the ground that they have not given reasons. At the same time it cannot also be said that all the awards are contrary to law and justice. In this situation it would be wholly unjust to pass an order either remitting or setting aside the awards, merely on the ground that no reasons are given in them, except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission or an order made by the Court such as the one under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act or the statute governing the arbitration required that the arbitrator or the umpire should givereasons for the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> There is, however, one aspect of non-speaking awards in non-statutory arbitrations to which Government and Governmental authorities are parties that compel attention. The trappings of a body which discharges judicial functions and requires to act in accordance with law with their concomitant obligations for reasoned decisions are not attracted to a private adjudication of the nature of arbitration as the latter, as we have noticed earlier, is not supposed to exert the State's sovereign judicial power. But arbitral awards in disputes to which the State and its instrumentalities are parties affect public interest and the matter or the manner in which Government and its instrumentalities allow their interest to be affected by such arbitral adjudications involve larger questions of policy and public interest. Government and its instrumentalities cannot simply allow large financial interests of the State to be prejudicially affected by non-reviewable --except in the limited way allowed by the Statute -- non-speaking arbitral awards. Indeed, this branch of the system of dispute resolution has, of late, acquired a certain degree of notoriety by the manner in which'in many cases the financial interests of Government have come to suffer by awards which have raised eye-brows by doubts as to their rectitude and propriety. It will not be justifiable for Governments or their instrumen- talities to enter into arbitration agreements which do not expressly stipulate the rendering of reasoned and speaking awards, Governments and their instrumentalities should as a matter of policy and public interest -- if not as a compulsion of law -- ensure that wherever they enter into agreements for resolution of disputes by resort to private arbitrations, the requirement of speaking awards is expressly stipulated and ensured. It is for Governments and their instrumentalities to ensure in future this requirement as a matter of policy in the larger public interest. Any lapse in that behalf might lend itself to and perhaps justify, the legitimate criticism that Government failed to provide against possible prejudice to public interest.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court further summarised as follows at para 38 : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Having given our careful and anxious consideration to the contentions urged by the parties we feel that law should be allowed to remain as it is until the competent legislature amends the law. In the result we hold that an award passed under the Arbitration Act is not liable to be remitted or set aside merely on the ground that no reasons have been given in its support except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission or an order made by the Court such as the one under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act or the statute governing the arbitration requiies that the arbitrator or the umpire should give reasons for the award. These cases will now go back to the Division Bench for disposal in accordance with law and the view expressed by us in this decision.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of this pronouncement of the 5 Judge Bench, the decision in Food Corpn. of India v. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., : [1988]3SCR366 rendered by two Judges Bench, cited by Sri M. Chandra Sekhara Rao, to the effect that unreasoned award is bad does not help him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is significant to note that Proviso to Section 14(1) is not given retrospective effect, while 1st Proviso to Section 17 invalidates any award pending in the Court at the commencement of the Act i.e., 19-2-1990, or any award filed in the Court subsequently and which does not contain reasons and directs that such awards must be remitted to the arbitrators. There is apparant conflict between the two provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The two provisos can be reconciled by interpreting the 1st proviso to Section 17 as referring to awards passed in respect of agreements which contain a stipulation that reasons must be given in the award. Such awards will be invalid even dehors proviso to Section 14(1) as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors (AIR 1990 SC 1426) (supra). Then the question arises why the Legislature has intervened to declare that they are invalid,which are even otherwise invalid. The reason is obvious. The Legislature wanted to give effect to the settled position of law as decided by the Supreme Court in Bungo Steel Furniture pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, : [1967]1SCR633 and referred to in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors (AIR 1990 SC 1426) (supra) (hat awards which do not give reasons required to be given as per the agreement are invalid. The Legislature has also declared that in such circumstances, the Court has no option but to remit the matter to arbitrators. Before amendment, it was-open to Court either to remit or to decide the matter itself on merits. If the intention is otherwise, the Legislature would have given retrospective effect to proviso to Section 14 also, which would have resulted in setting aside number of awards and remitting back to arbitrators. The Legislature obviously wanted to avoid this.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The matter can be looked at from another angle. Suppose the parties entered into agreement before commencement of the amendment without making any stipulation that reasons must be given in the award, as all the provisions of the Act apply to awards by virtue of Section 47 of (he Act and as the Act, as it then stood, did not require the arbitrator to give any reasons for the award, any award passed before 19-2-1990 without giving reasons will not be invalid as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors (AIR 1990 SC 1426) (supra) since the parties did not contemplate that reasons should be given. The first proviso to Section 17 does not apply to such award. On the other hand, if the award has not been passed by 19-2-1990. proviso to Section 14(1) will govern the award and if reasons are not given, it will be invalid as per proviso to Section 14(1) even though the parties did not contemplate reasoned award. Consequently, under Section 17, the Court has no option but to remit the matter to the arbitrator. Now, let us taken another example where parties have stipulated in the agreement entered into before 19-2-1990 that reasons must be given in the award. Even de-hors proviso to Section 14(1), any award passed before 19-2-1990without giving reasons will be invalid and the Court earlier may either remit the matter to the arbitrator for giving reasons in support of the award or itself pass order on merits. But the first proviso to Section 17 now leaves no discretion to the Court which has to send back the matter to the arbitrator to give reasons in support of the award. As regards agreements entered into after the amendment, even in the absence of any stipulation between the parties about the necessity lo give reasoned awards, as the Act governs the award by virtue of Section 47, the award must comply with proviso to Section 14(1) and give reasons and if any unreasoned award is passed, the Court has to set aside the same and remit to arbilrator under first proviso to Section 17. Thus the intention of she Legislature is to give effect to the intention of the parties in respect of awards passed prior to 19-2-1990 and to make the passing of reasoned awards after 19-2-1990 irrespective of intention of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. By this harmoncous construction of the two provisos, no prejudice is caused to the parlies, and at the same time, it will not result in setting aside numerous awards passed prior lo 19-2-1990. No doubt, the first proviso to Section 17 is not happily worded. The expression 'as required by proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14' gives rise to difficulty and ambiguity. The draftsman must have used these words by way of description of the awards, which requires reasons to be given. As already seen, even awards passed before amendment had to contain reasons if the agreement contemplates reasons to be given. On the other hand, if this expression is extended to cover all awards, it will amount to giving retrospective effect to proviso to Section 14(1), which the Legislature itself did not give.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. M. Chandrasekhara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the first proviso to Section 17 applies to all awards pending at the commencement of the Amendment Act or awards filed in Courts subsequently but does not apply to awards made rule of the Court before commencement of the Act and relied on the decisions inSuperintending Engineer v. Gayatri Engineers Company, (1991) -1 Andh LT 658, State of A.P. v. P. Lakshmu Reddi, (1993) 3 Andh LT 694, Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd. v. Industrial Devlp. Corpn. of Orissa Ltd., : [1993]1SCR229 and Goa. Daman & Diu Housing Board v. Ramakant V. P. Darvot-kar, : [1991]3SCR904 . In Superintending Engineer v. Gayalri Engineers Company (supra), a division Bench of this Court consisting of Justice Amareswari and Justice P.L.N. Sarma held that the 1st proviso to Section 17 applies only to awards pending at the commencement of the Act or awards filed in Courts subsequently, but not to awards made rule of the Court before the commencement of the Amendment and which are subject matter of appeals or revisions. To the similar effect is the decision of the Division Bench consisting of Justice G. Radhakrishna Rao and Justice P. Ramakrishnam Raju in State of A. P. v. P. Lakhshmu Reddi (supra). These decisions do not help the respondent as the question that arises in this case has neither been raised nor decided in those cases. In Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd. v. Industrial Devlp. Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (supra), the question was what is meant by reasoned award. Setting out conclusions on issues without discussing the reasons for such conclusion was held to be not reasoned or speaking award. This decision also is not of any lassistance to the responded. Similarly, the decision in Goa, Daman & Diu Housing Board v. Ramakant V. P. Darvotkar : [1991]3SCR904 (supra) interpreting Section 16 of the Act is not relevant for the purpose of this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. To sum up, unreasoned awards affected by the amendment can be classified as follows :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If reasons are stipulated in agreement</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If reasons are not stipulated in agreement</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Before 19-2-1990After 19-2-1990Before 19-2-1990 After 19-2-I990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Passed and filed in the Court before 19-2-1990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Invalid with consequential result of eitherremitting thematter toArbitrator ordecision bythe Court it self on merits</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Invalid with the consequential result of remitting the matter toArbitrator</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Valid Valid Not affected by the amendment</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Passed before amendment but filed after 19-2-1990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Not applicable-do-Not applicable-do-passed and filed in the Court after 19-2-I990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Not applicable-do-Not applicable Invalid irrespective of agreement with the consequential result of remitting the matter to Arbitrator<p style="text-align: justify;">11. In the instant case, as it is the admitted case of the parties that the agreement did not provide for reasons in the award; applying the above principles, I hold that the award passed on 2-2-1987, before commencement of the amendment Act i.e., 19-2-1990, is valid even though reasons were not given and neither proviso to Section 14(1) nor first proviso to Section M applies to such award. In view ofthis, I need not go into the question of vires of two provisos. No other point is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">W.P. No. 12938 of 1990 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The petitioner entered into agreement with the 2nd respondent on 20-7-1981 for supply of cement manufacturing machinery. Clause 11(2) of the agreement provided for referring any dispute, that may arise under it, to arbitration. As certain disputes arose, the petitioner nominated Justice M. S. Apte, a retired Judge of High Court of Bombay, as arbitrator, while the second respondent appointed Sri Y. Ratnakar, Advocate, as arbitrator, Justice V. D. Tuljapurkar, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court was appointed as Umpire. As there was disagreement between the two arbitrators, the matter was referredfor determination by the Umpire who passed award on 22-12-1989 granting petitioner Rs.4,08,084/- together with interest of Rs. 2,82,000-/- but did not give reasons. The petitioner Company filed O.S. No. 99 of 1990 before the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,under Section 14(2) of the Act for making the award Rule of the Court When the matter was pending in the Civil Court, A. P. Amendment Act 1 of 1990 adding provisos to Sections 14(1) and 17 of the Act came into force with effect from 19-2-1990. Apprehending that in pursuance of proviso to Section 14(1) and 1st proviso to Section 17, the third respondent would remit the award to the Umpire for furnishing reasons, the petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the vires of proviso to Section 14(1) and 1st proviso to Section 17 introduced by Act 1 of 1990 and obtained stay of all further proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised the same contentions as urged in W.P. No. 11049 of 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As already held by me, award passed before cormmencement of the amendment Act i.e:, 19-2-1990, is valid even though reasons are not given, if the agreement did not provide for reasons in award. It is the admitted case of the parties that the agreement did not provide for reasons in the award. Thus, in the instant case neither proviso to Section 14(1) nor first proviso to Section 17 applies. In view of this, I need not go into the question of vires of two provisos. Accordingly, this writ petition also has to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed and the Additional Chief Judge, Hederabad and IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, are directed to proceed with O.S. No. 2 of 1988 & O.P. No.41 of 1988 and O.S. No.99 of 1990 respectively and dispose them of in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration Act without reference to the Amendment Act 1 of 1990. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Petitions allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1996AP167',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Andhra Pradesh and Others',
			'sub' => 'Arbitration',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '424011'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'M/S. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., Pune Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 14(2',
		(int) 1 => 'the Arbitration Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 14',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 14',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 14',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 8 => 'the Arbitration Act',
		(int) 9 => 'the Arbitration Act',
		(int) 10 => 'the Arbitration Act',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 17 'Provided',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 14',
		(int) 13 => 'Paras 33',
		(int) 14 => 'the Arbitration Act',
		(int) 15 => 'the English Arbitration Act',
		(int) 16 => 'Section 1',
		(int) 17 => 'Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act',
		(int) 18 => 'Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act',
		(int) 19 => 'the Arbitration Act',
		(int) 20 => 'Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act',
		(int) 21 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 22 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 23 => 'Section 14',
		(int) 24 => 'Section 47',
		(int) 25 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 26 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 27 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 28 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 29 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 30 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 31 => 'Section 47',
		(int) 32 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 33 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 34 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 35 => 'Section 14'',
		(int) 36 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 37 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 38 => 'the Amendment Act',
		(int) 39 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 40 => 'Section 16 of the Act',
		(int) 41 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 42 => 'Section 14(2',
		(int) 43 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 44 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 45 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 46 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 47 => 'Act 1 of 1990',
		(int) 48 => 'Section 14(1',
		(int) 49 => 'Section 17',
		(int) 50 => 'Arbitration Act',
		(int) 51 => 'the Amendment Act 1 of 1990'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '11049 of 1990 2',
		(int) 1 => '1987',
		(int) 2 => '1987',
		(int) 3 => '1988',
		(int) 4 => '8-11-1988',
		(int) 5 => '1988',
		(int) 6 => '1989',
		(int) 7 => '24-11-1989',
		(int) 8 => '1990',
		(int) 9 => '1990',
		(int) 10 => '11049 of 1990',
		(int) 11 => '1990',
		(int) 12 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 13 => '1940',
		(int) 14 => '1940',
		(int) 15 => '1990',
		(int) 16 => 'thirty days',
		(int) 17 => '1426',
		(int) 18 => '37',
		(int) 19 => '1940',
		(int) 20 => 'nearly 7/8 decades',
		(int) 21 => '1958',
		(int) 22 => 'nearly a decade ago',
		(int) 23 => '1979',
		(int) 24 => '1979',
		(int) 25 => 'recent years',
		(int) 26 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 27 => '1426',
		(int) 28 => '1967]1SCR633',
		(int) 29 => '1426',
		(int) 30 => '1426',
		(int) 31 => '1991',
		(int) 32 => '1993',
		(int) 33 => '1990',
		(int) 34 => '1990 12',
		(int) 35 => '22-12-1989',
		(int) 36 => '1990',
		(int) 37 => '1990',
		(int) 38 => '11049',
		(int) 39 => '1990',
		(int) 40 => '1988',
		(int) 41 => '1990'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'second',
		(int) 1 => 'second',
		(int) 2 => 'second',
		(int) 3 => 'second',
		(int) 4 => 'second',
		(int) 5 => 'first',
		(int) 6 => 'first',
		(int) 7 => 'first',
		(int) 8 => 'first',
		(int) 9 => 'first',
		(int) 10 => 'first',
		(int) 11 => 'first',
		(int) 12 => '2nd',
		(int) 13 => 'second',
		(int) 14 => '1st',
		(int) 15 => 'third',
		(int) 16 => '1st',
		(int) 17 => 'first'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '23',
		(int) 1 => '2',
		(int) 2 => '988',
		(int) 3 => '2',
		(int) 4 => '3,05,006,/-',
		(int) 5 => '249',
		(int) 6 => '387',
		(int) 7 => '41',
		(int) 8 => '30',
		(int) 9 => '453',
		(int) 10 => '1',
		(int) 11 => '17',
		(int) 12 => '3',
		(int) 13 => '26',
		(int) 14 => '19-2-1990',
		(int) 15 => '1',
		(int) 16 => '2',
		(int) 17 => '17',
		(int) 18 => '1',
		(int) 19 => '5',
		(int) 20 => '574',
		(int) 21 => '5',
		(int) 22 => '6',
		(int) 23 => 'two',
		(int) 24 => 'one',
		(int) 25 => '38',
		(int) 26 => '5',
		(int) 27 => '1988]3SCR366',
		(int) 28 => 'two',
		(int) 29 => '19',
		(int) 30 => 'two',
		(int) 31 => 'two',
		(int) 32 => '19-2-1990',
		(int) 33 => '19',
		(int) 34 => '19-2-1990',
		(int) 35 => '19',
		(int) 36 => 'two',
		(int) 37 => '19-2-1990',
		(int) 38 => '1',
		(int) 39 => '658',
		(int) 40 => '3',
		(int) 41 => '694',
		(int) 42 => '1993]1SCR229',
		(int) 43 => '1991]3SCR904',
		(int) 44 => '1991]3SCR904',
		(int) 45 => '19-2-1990After',
		(int) 46 => '19-2-1990',
		(int) 47 => '19',
		(int) 48 => '19',
		(int) 49 => '19-2-1990Not',
		(int) 50 => '19',
		(int) 51 => '2',
		(int) 52 => '19',
		(int) 53 => 'two',
		(int) 54 => '20',
		(int) 55 => 'two',
		(int) 56 => '17',
		(int) 57 => '1990.14',
		(int) 58 => '19',
		(int) 59 => 'two',
		(int) 60 => '2'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rege',
		(int) 1 => 'Krishna Rao',
		(int) 2 => 'G. Venkat Rarna Sastry',
		(int) 3 => 'A. P. Amendment Act 1',
		(int) 4 => 'Krishna Rao',
		(int) 5 => 'Sri K. Jagannatha Rao',
		(int) 6 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry',
		(int) 7 => 'Reasons',
		(int) 8 => 'Bench',
		(int) 9 => 'Evershed M.R.',
		(int) 10 => 'Poole Corpn',
		(int) 11 => 'Administrative Law',
		(int) 12 => 'Administrative Law',
		(int) 13 => 'Bench',
		(int) 14 => 'Bench',
		(int) 15 => 'Sri M. Chandra Sekhara Rao',
		(int) 16 => 'him.5',
		(int) 17 => 'M. Chandrasekhara Rao',
		(int) 18 => 'P. Lakshmu',
		(int) 19 => 'Industrial Devlp',
		(int) 20 => 'Corpn',
		(int) 21 => 'Ramakant V. P. Darvot-kar',
		(int) 22 => 'Bench',
		(int) 23 => 'Amareswari',
		(int) 24 => 'Sarma',
		(int) 25 => 'G. Radhakrishna Rao',
		(int) 26 => 'P. Ramakrishnam Raju',
		(int) 27 => 'Industrial Devlp',
		(int) 28 => 'Corpn',
		(int) 29 => 'Ramakant V. P. Darvotkar',
		(int) 30 => 'M. S. Apte',
		(int) 31 => 'Sri Y. Ratnakar',
		(int) 32 => 'V. D. Tuljapurkar',
		(int) 33 => 'A. P. Amendment Act 1',
		(int) 34 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'High Court',
		(int) 1 => 'the Court of Additional',
		(int) 2 => 'Hyderabad',
		(int) 3 => 'Umpire',
		(int) 4 => 'O.S. No',
		(int) 5 => 'Court',
		(int) 6 => 'O.P. No',
		(int) 7 => 'O.P. No',
		(int) 8 => 'Court',
		(int) 9 => 'C.R.P. No',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'the City Civil Court',
		(int) 12 => 'the Civil Court',
		(int) 13 => 'W.P.',
		(int) 14 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry',
		(int) 15 => 'Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry',
		(int) 16 => 'Arbitrators',
		(int) 17 => 'Sections 14',
		(int) 18 => 'Court',
		(int) 19 => 'the Arbitration (Anrjhra Pradesh Amendment) Act',
		(int) 20 => 'Court',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Supreme Court',
		(int) 25 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
		(int) 26 => 'AIR 1990',
		(int) 27 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 28 => 'Court',
		(int) 29 => 'the Indian Law Commission',
		(int) 30 => 'Government',
		(int) 31 => 'Parliament',
		(int) 32 => 'Court',
		(int) 33 => 'the Court of Appeal',
		(int) 34 => 'Court',
		(int) 35 => 'Court',
		(int) 36 => 'the Indian Law Commission',
		(int) 37 => 'Parliament',
		(int) 38 => 'Court',
		(int) 39 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 40 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 41 => 'Court',
		(int) 42 => 'all.the High Courts',
		(int) 43 => 'Court',
		(int) 44 => 'Court',
		(int) 45 => 'Court',
		(int) 46 => 'Government',
		(int) 47 => 'State',
		(int) 48 => 'State',
		(int) 49 => 'Government',
		(int) 50 => 'State',
		(int) 51 => 'Statute',
		(int) 52 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 53 => 'Court',
		(int) 54 => 'Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.',
		(int) 55 => '1st Proviso to Section 17',
		(int) 56 => 'Court',
		(int) 57 => 'Court',
		(int) 58 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 59 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
		(int) 60 => 'AIR 1990 SC',
		(int) 61 => 'Legislature',
		(int) 62 => 'Legislature',
		(int) 63 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 64 => 'Bungo Steel Furniture',
		(int) 65 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 66 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
		(int) 67 => 'AIR 1990 SC',
		(int) 68 => 'Legislature',
		(int) 69 => 'Court',
		(int) 70 => 'Court',
		(int) 71 => 'Legislature',
		(int) 72 => 'Legislature',
		(int) 73 => 'Act',
		(int) 74 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 75 => 'Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors',
		(int) 76 => 'AIR 1990 SC',
		(int) 77 => 'Court',
		(int) 78 => 'Court',
		(int) 79 => 'Court',
		(int) 80 => 'Court',
		(int) 81 => 'Legislature',
		(int) 82 => 'Legislature',
		(int) 83 => 'Courts',
		(int) 84 => 'Court',
		(int) 85 => 'Engineer',
		(int) 86 => 'Gayatri Engineers Company',
		(int) 87 => 'State',
		(int) 88 => 'A.P.',
		(int) 89 => 'Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd.',
		(int) 90 => 'Orissa Ltd.',
		(int) 91 => 'Goa.',
		(int) 92 => 'Daman & Diu Housing Board',
		(int) 93 => 'Superintending Engineer',
		(int) 94 => 'Gayalri Engineers Company',
		(int) 95 => 'Court',
		(int) 96 => 'Justice',
		(int) 97 => 'Courts',
		(int) 98 => 'Court',
		(int) 99 => 'Amendment',
		(int) 100 => 'Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd.',
		(int) 101 => 'Orissa Ltd.',
		(int) 102 => 'Goa, Daman & Diu Housing Board',
		(int) 103 => 'Court',
		(int) 104 => 'Court',
		(int) 105 => 'Court',
		(int) 106 => 'Section M',
		(int) 107 => 'High Court',
		(int) 108 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 109 => 'Umpire',
		(int) 110 => 'Umpire',
		(int) 111 => 'O.S. No',
		(int) 112 => 'City Civil Court',
		(int) 113 => 'Hyderabad',
		(int) 114 => 'Court',
		(int) 115 => 'the Civil Court',
		(int) 116 => 'Umpire',
		(int) 117 => 'Hederabad',
		(int) 118 => 'City Civil Court',
		(int) 119 => 'Hyderabad',
		(int) 120 => 'O.S. No',
		(int) 121 => 'O.S. No.99'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Bombay',
		(int) 1 => 'O.S.',
		(int) 2 => 'LA',
		(int) 3 => 'United Kingdom',
		(int) 4 => 'Proviso',
		(int) 5 => 'India',
		(int) 6 => 'England',
		(int) 7 => 'U.S.A.',
		(int) 8 => 'Australia',
		(int) 9 => 'us',
		(int) 10 => 'Delhi',
		(int) 11 => 'Governmental',
		(int) 12 => 'India',
		(int) 13 => 'Proviso',
		(int) 14 => 'Bombay'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '19-2-',
		(int) 1 => '19-2-1990',
		(int) 2 => '19-2-1990',
		(int) 3 => '19-2-',
		(int) 4 => '19-2-'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Objects'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Brownsea Haven Properties',
		(int) 1 => 'Food Corpn'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '424011',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> - Sections 14, 14 (1) and (2), 17, 20, 21, 30, 34 and 47; Arbitration (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1990',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. Nos. 11049 and 12938 of 1990',
		'appellant' => 'M/S. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., Pune',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'M/S. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., Pune Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Arbitration - justified award - Proviso to Section 14 (1) and Proviso 1st (as added by A. P. Act of 1990) to Section 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 - certain award without reasons given by arbitrator relating to certain dispute - award challenged - certain amendments relating to Provisos to Sections 14 (1) and 17 introduced during pendency of suit in Civil Court - petition filed challenging scope of Provisos - award passed before introduction of Amendment Act - agreement did not provide for any reasons - award valid even though reasons not given - held, Provisos to Sections 14 (1) and 17 not to be applied as award given without reasons.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (59 OF 1988)Section 149 (2): [V. Gopala Gowda & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Insurers entitlement to defend the action  Joint appeal by insured and insurer - Held, The language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of Section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. It shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, and no other grounds are available to it. The insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other grounds, which are available to the insured. If insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer and will be negation of the intention of the Legislature and annihilate mandate of the provisions of Sections 170 and 149 of the Act. The insured can pursue appeal only after giving up the insurer as the appellant and not otherwise. In the instant case, the insurer has not withdrawn from party array but has remained prosecuting the appeal with the insured on the grounds which are available only to the insured. Therefore, the joint appeal as filed by the insured and the insurer is not maintainable. 

Section 166: [V. Gopala Gowda & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Claim for compensation  Accident due to mechanical defect in the vehicle  Held, It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in an accident, which occurred during the course of his employment, albeit due to his negligence but law does not render him remediless. Statutory right is conferred on him, accruing by virtue of his employment under insured to claim compensation under Workmens Compensation Act. The insurer is statutorily duty bound to discharge the liability of the owner of the vehicle, to pay such compensation to the employee, as mandated under the provisions of Section 149 of the Act. The right of an injured employee or his dependents as the case may be to be compensated, when injury is suffered or death occurs during his employment, is recognised not only under Workmens Compensation Act, but also under benevolent provisions under Section 166 and 167 of the M.V. Act. The right of driver to seek compensation is not restricted only to the Workmens Compensation Act, it has been enlarged to enable such person to seek just compensation (Sections 166 and 168), conferring upon him the right of election engrafted under Section 167 of the Act to choose either of the two Forum. The only defence which the insurer could take is limit of its liability as enumerated under Section 147 of the Act, leading to contest, inter alia, only between insured and insurer and does not impact claimants right to recover the compensation determined by the Tribunal which crystallizes into enforceable right against both. In the instant case, the claimant/driver has exercised right of election under Section 167 of the Act to seek compensation under Section 166 of the Act resulting in award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. Undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. The owner is therefore, tortfeasor. 

Section 168: [V. Gopala Gowda & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Insurers limit of liability -  Held, It is well settled that the liability of the Insurance Company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. Is for the Insurance Company to show that the Insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. That issue was neither raised before the Tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. Thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under Section 149 (1) of the Act. Where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the Act, instead of seeking compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act. On facts, held, The material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the Tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. The settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye. Compensation of Rs.4,15,150/- awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs.8,20,000/-.  -  ' 4. The question whether an award is vitiated by failure to give reasons has been considered by the 5 Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. it was held that failure to give reasons in the award does not conslitute violation of principles of natural justice and that the -award cannot be set aside on that ground unless parties have contemplated in the agreement that the award should contain reasons. It is a well known rule of construction that if a certain interpretation has been uniformly put upon the meaning of a statute and transactions such as dealings inproperly and making of contracts have taken place on the basis of that interpretation, the Court will not put a different interpretation upon it which will materially affect those transactions. There is well established authority for the. Any lapse in that behalf might lend itself to and perhaps justify, the legitimate criticism that Government failed to provide against possible prejudice to public interest. Chandra Sekhara Rao, to the effect that unreasoned award is bad does not help him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Y. Sivarama Sastry, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Govt. Pleader for Arbitration and ;M Chandrasekhara Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1995-06-14',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Dasaratha Rama Reddy, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. As both the writ petitions raise common points, they are disposed of by a common judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">W.P. No. 11049 of 1990 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner entered into agreement with the second respondent on 23-2-1983 for sale of cement manufacturing machinery. Clause 12(2) of the agreement provided for referring any dispute, that may arise under it, to arbitration. As certain disputes arose, the petitioner nominated Justice Rege, retired Judge of High Court of Bombay, as arbitrator, while the second respondent appointed late Jusfice Krishna Rao, as arbitrator. Justice G. Venkat Rarna Sastry was appointed as O.S. No. 2 off 988, in the Court of Additional Chief Judge (Temporary), Hyderabad, as Umpire. The arbitrators gave unanimous award on 2-2-1987 granting petitioner Rs. 17,74,858/- together with interest of Rs. 3,05,006,/- but did not give reasons. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 249 of 1987, later renumbered under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the.'Act') to make the award rule of the Court. The second respondent filed O.P. No. 387 of 1987, later renumbered as O.P. No. 41 of 1988, underSection 30 of the Act to set aside the award. The Court below pronounced ex parte judgment on 8-11-1988. LA. No. 453 of 1988 filed by the second respondent to set aside the ex parte decree was allowed on 1-2-1989 and C.R.P. No. 1043 of 1989 filed against the same by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 24-11-1989. When the matter was thus sent back to the City Civil Court and was pending there, A. P. Amendment Act 1 of 1990 adding provisos to Sections 14(1) and 17 of the Act came into force with effect from 19-2-1990. Based on this amendment, the Civil Court on 3-7-1990 remanded the mailer to the arbitrators to give reasons for the award. But Justice Krishna Rao, arbitrator, nominated by second respondent refused to act as arbitrator and in his place Sri K. Jagannatha Rao, Advocate, was appointed as arbitrator on 26-7-1990. At this stage, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 11049 of 1990 questioning the vires of proviso to Section 14 and 1st proviso to Section 17 introduced by Act I of 1990 and obtained stay of all further proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the amendment making all awards passed without giving reasons as invalid without making any classification of agreements is arbitrary and that in any event as proviso to Section 14 is not retrospective, the 1st proviso to Section 17 cannot be applied to the award passed prior to 19-2-1990. I shall take up first the alternative contention of Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry. To appreciate the contention of Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, it is necessary to refer to the objects and reasons of the amendment, proviso to Section 14 and 1st proviso to Section 17 of the Act. They read as follows;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Statement of Objects and Reasons </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The provisions of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> are not specific that the award shall give reasons. In the absence of a reasoned award, the parties affected by it remain unaware of how the arbitrators reached their decision. The process is also susceptible of gross abuse affording little or no legal remedy to the parties. The present trend of law in United Kingdom and other countries is towardspassing a reasoned award. Accordingly, the Government considered it desirable to amend the provisions of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> to enjoin upon the Arbitrators to adduce reasons in the awards passed by them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is accordingly decided to amend Sections 14 and 17 of the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a>:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> ..........' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Proviso to Section 14(1)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Provided that the arbitrators or umpire shall give reasons for any award made under this section and no award shall be valid unlessreasons therefor are given as aforesaid.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1st Proviso to Section 17 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Provided that where an award pending in the Court at the commencement of the Arbitration (Anrjhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1990 or an award filed in the Court, thereafter does not contain reasons therefor as required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 the Court shall not proceed to pronounce the judgment according to the award, but shall remit the award to the arbitrators or the umpire forgiving reasons therefor as required by the said proviso and thereupon the arbitrators or umpire shall, within thirty days from' the date of remittance of the award to them by the Court give reasons for the award and file the same in the Court.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The question whether an award is vitiated by failure to give reasons has been considered by the 5 Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors, AIR 1990 SC 1426 where, after reviewing entire case law. it was held that failure to give reasons in the award does not conslitute violation of principles of natural justice and that the -award cannot be set aside on that ground unless parties have contemplated in the agreement that the award should contain reasons. The Supreme Court held as follows (Paras 33 to 37): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The question which arises for consideration in these cases is whether it is appropriate for this Court to take the view that any awardpassed under the Act, that is, the <a href="/act/51678/arbitration-act-1940-repealed-complete-act">Arbitration Act, 1940</a> is liable to be remitted or set aside solelytm the ground that the arbitrator has not given reasons thus virtually introducing by ajudicial verdict an amendment to the Act when it has not been the law for nearly 7/8 decades. The people in India as in oilier parts . of the world such as England, U.S.A. and Australia have become accustomed to the system of settlement of disputes by private arbitration and have accepted awards made against them as binding even though no reasons have been given in support of the awards a long time. They have attached more importance to the element of finality of the awards than their legality. Of course, when reasons are given in support of the awards and those reasons disclose any error apparent on the face of the record people have not refrained from questioning such awards before the Courts. It is not as if that people are without any remedy at all in cases where they find that it is in their interest to require the arbitrator to give reasons for the award. In cases where reasons are required, it is open to the parties to the dispute to introduce a term either in the arbitration agreement or in the deed of submission requiring the arbitrators . to give reasons in support of the awards. When the parties to the dispute insist upon reasons being given, the arbitrator is, as already observed earlier, under an obligation to give reasons. But there may be many arbitrations in which parties to the dispute may not relish the disclosure of the reasons for the awards. In the circumstances and particularly having regard to the Various reasons given by the Indian Law Commission for not recommending to the Government to introduce an amendment in the Act requiring the arbitrators to give reasons for their awards we fee! that it may not be appropriate to take the view that all awards which do not contain reasons should either be remitted or set aside. A decision on the question argued before us involves a question of legislative policy which should be left to the decision of Parliament. It is a well known rule of construction that if a certain interpretation has been uniformly put upon the meaning of a statute and transactions such as dealings inproperly and making of contracts have taken place on the basis of that interpretation, the Court will not put a different interpretation upon it which will materially affect those transactions. We may refer here to the decision of the Court of Appeal rendered by Lord Evershed M.R. in Brownsea Haven Properties v. Poole Corpn. (1958) Ch 574 in which it is observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 'There is well established authority for the. view that a decision of long standing, on the basis of which many persons will in the course of time have arranged their affairs should not lightly be disturbed by a superior Court not strictly bound itself by the decision.' Courts should be slow in taking decisions tf which will have the effect of shaking rights and titles which have been founded through a long time upon the conviction that a particular interpretation of law is the legal and proper one and is one which will not be departed from.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is no doubt true that in the decisions pertaining to Administrative Law, this Court in some cases has observed that the giving of reasons in an administrative decision is a rule of natural justice by an extension of the prevailing rule. It would be in the interest 'of the world of commerce that the said rule is confined to the area to Administrative Law. We do appreciate the contention urged on behalf of the parties who contend that it would be made obligatory on the part of the arbitrator to give reasons for the award, that there is no justification to leave the small area covered by the law of arbitration out of the general rule that the decision of every judicial and quasi-judicial body should be supported by reasons. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that what applies generally to settlement of disputes by authorities governed by public law need not be extended to all cases arising under private law such as these arising under the law of arbitration which is intended for settlement of private disputes. As stated elsewhere in the course of this judgment if the parties to the dispute feel that reasons should be given by the arbitrators for the awards it is within their power to insist upon such reasons being given at the time when they enter intoarbitration agreement or sign the deed of submission. It is significant that although nearly a decade ago the Indian Law Commission submitted its report on the law of arbitration specifically mentioning therein that there was no necessity to amend the law of arbitration requiring the arbitrators to give reasons, Parliament has not chosen to take any step in the direction of the amendment of the law of arbitration. Even after the passing of the English Arbitration Act, 1979 unless a Court requires the arbitrator to give reasons for the award (vide sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 1 of the English Arbitration Act, 1979), an award is not liable to be set aside merely on the ground that no reasons have been given in support of it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is true that in two cases one decided by the High Court of Delhi and another decided by the High Court of Orissa there are some observations to the effect that it would be in the interests of justice if the arbitrators are required to give reasons for their awards because in recent years the moral standards of arbitrators are going down. But generally this Court and all.the High Courts have taken the view that merely because the reasons are not given an award is not liable to be remitted or set aside except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission, or an order made by the Court such as the one under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act or the statute governing the arbitration requires that the arbitrator or umpire should give reasons for the award. The arbitrators or umpire have passed the awards which are involved in cases before us relying on the law declared by this Court that the awards could not be questioned merely on the ground that they have not given reasons. At the same time it cannot also be said that all the awards are contrary to law and justice. In this situation it would be wholly unjust to pass an order either remitting or setting aside the awards, merely on the ground that no reasons are given in them, except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission or an order made by the Court such as the one under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act or the statute governing the arbitration required that the arbitrator or the umpire should givereasons for the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> There is, however, one aspect of non-speaking awards in non-statutory arbitrations to which Government and Governmental authorities are parties that compel attention. The trappings of a body which discharges judicial functions and requires to act in accordance with law with their concomitant obligations for reasoned decisions are not attracted to a private adjudication of the nature of arbitration as the latter, as we have noticed earlier, is not supposed to exert the State's sovereign judicial power. But arbitral awards in disputes to which the State and its instrumentalities are parties affect public interest and the matter or the manner in which Government and its instrumentalities allow their interest to be affected by such arbitral adjudications involve larger questions of policy and public interest. Government and its instrumentalities cannot simply allow large financial interests of the State to be prejudicially affected by non-reviewable --except in the limited way allowed by the Statute -- non-speaking arbitral awards. Indeed, this branch of the system of dispute resolution has, of late, acquired a certain degree of notoriety by the manner in which'in many cases the financial interests of Government have come to suffer by awards which have raised eye-brows by doubts as to their rectitude and propriety. It will not be justifiable for Governments or their instrumen- talities to enter into arbitration agreements which do not expressly stipulate the rendering of reasoned and speaking awards, Governments and their instrumentalities should as a matter of policy and public interest -- if not as a compulsion of law -- ensure that wherever they enter into agreements for resolution of disputes by resort to private arbitrations, the requirement of speaking awards is expressly stipulated and ensured. It is for Governments and their instrumentalities to ensure in future this requirement as a matter of policy in the larger public interest. Any lapse in that behalf might lend itself to and perhaps justify, the legitimate criticism that Government failed to provide against possible prejudice to public interest.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court further summarised as follows at para 38 : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Having given our careful and anxious consideration to the contentions urged by the parties we feel that law should be allowed to remain as it is until the competent legislature amends the law. In the result we hold that an award passed under the Arbitration Act is not liable to be remitted or set aside merely on the ground that no reasons have been given in its support except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission or an order made by the Court such as the one under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act or the statute governing the arbitration requiies that the arbitrator or the umpire should give reasons for the award. These cases will now go back to the Division Bench for disposal in accordance with law and the view expressed by us in this decision.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of this pronouncement of the 5 Judge Bench, the decision in Food Corpn. of India v. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., : [1988]3SCR366 rendered by two Judges Bench, cited by Sri M. Chandra Sekhara Rao, to the effect that unreasoned award is bad does not help him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is significant to note that Proviso to Section 14(1) is not given retrospective effect, while 1st Proviso to Section 17 invalidates any award pending in the Court at the commencement of the Act i.e., 19-2-1990, or any award filed in the Court subsequently and which does not contain reasons and directs that such awards must be remitted to the arbitrators. There is apparant conflict between the two provisos.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The two provisos can be reconciled by interpreting the 1st proviso to Section 17 as referring to awards passed in respect of agreements which contain a stipulation that reasons must be given in the award. Such awards will be invalid even dehors proviso to Section 14(1) as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors (AIR 1990 SC 1426) (supra). Then the question arises why the Legislature has intervened to declare that they are invalid,which are even otherwise invalid. The reason is obvious. The Legislature wanted to give effect to the settled position of law as decided by the Supreme Court in Bungo Steel Furniture pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, : [1967]1SCR633 and referred to in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors (AIR 1990 SC 1426) (supra) (hat awards which do not give reasons required to be given as per the agreement are invalid. The Legislature has also declared that in such circumstances, the Court has no option but to remit the matter to arbitrators. Before amendment, it was-open to Court either to remit or to decide the matter itself on merits. If the intention is otherwise, the Legislature would have given retrospective effect to proviso to Section 14 also, which would have resulted in setting aside number of awards and remitting back to arbitrators. The Legislature obviously wanted to avoid this.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The matter can be looked at from another angle. Suppose the parties entered into agreement before commencement of the amendment without making any stipulation that reasons must be given in the award, as all the provisions of the Act apply to awards by virtue of Section 47 of (he Act and as the Act, as it then stood, did not require the arbitrator to give any reasons for the award, any award passed before 19-2-1990 without giving reasons will not be invalid as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors (AIR 1990 SC 1426) (supra) since the parties did not contemplate that reasons should be given. The first proviso to Section 17 does not apply to such award. On the other hand, if the award has not been passed by 19-2-1990. proviso to Section 14(1) will govern the award and if reasons are not given, it will be invalid as per proviso to Section 14(1) even though the parties did not contemplate reasoned award. Consequently, under Section 17, the Court has no option but to remit the matter to the arbitrator. Now, let us taken another example where parties have stipulated in the agreement entered into before 19-2-1990 that reasons must be given in the award. Even de-hors proviso to Section 14(1), any award passed before 19-2-1990without giving reasons will be invalid and the Court earlier may either remit the matter to the arbitrator for giving reasons in support of the award or itself pass order on merits. But the first proviso to Section 17 now leaves no discretion to the Court which has to send back the matter to the arbitrator to give reasons in support of the award. As regards agreements entered into after the amendment, even in the absence of any stipulation between the parties about the necessity lo give reasoned awards, as the Act governs the award by virtue of Section 47, the award must comply with proviso to Section 14(1) and give reasons and if any unreasoned award is passed, the Court has to set aside the same and remit to arbilrator under first proviso to Section 17. Thus the intention of she Legislature is to give effect to the intention of the parties in respect of awards passed prior to 19-2-1990 and to make the passing of reasoned awards after 19-2-1990 irrespective of intention of the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. By this harmoncous construction of the two provisos, no prejudice is caused to the parlies, and at the same time, it will not result in setting aside numerous awards passed prior lo 19-2-1990. No doubt, the first proviso to Section 17 is not happily worded. The expression 'as required by proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14' gives rise to difficulty and ambiguity. The draftsman must have used these words by way of description of the awards, which requires reasons to be given. As already seen, even awards passed before amendment had to contain reasons if the agreement contemplates reasons to be given. On the other hand, if this expression is extended to cover all awards, it will amount to giving retrospective effect to proviso to Section 14(1), which the Legislature itself did not give.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. M. Chandrasekhara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the first proviso to Section 17 applies to all awards pending at the commencement of the Amendment Act or awards filed in Courts subsequently but does not apply to awards made rule of the Court before commencement of the Act and relied on the decisions inSuperintending Engineer v. Gayatri Engineers Company, (1991) -1 Andh LT 658, State of A.P. v. P. Lakshmu Reddi, (1993) 3 Andh LT 694, Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd. v. Industrial Devlp. Corpn. of Orissa Ltd., : [1993]1SCR229 and Goa. Daman & Diu Housing Board v. Ramakant V. P. Darvot-kar, : [1991]3SCR904 . In Superintending Engineer v. Gayalri Engineers Company (supra), a division Bench of this Court consisting of Justice Amareswari and Justice P.L.N. Sarma held that the 1st proviso to Section 17 applies only to awards pending at the commencement of the Act or awards filed in Courts subsequently, but not to awards made rule of the Court before the commencement of the Amendment and which are subject matter of appeals or revisions. To the similar effect is the decision of the Division Bench consisting of Justice G. Radhakrishna Rao and Justice P. Ramakrishnam Raju in State of A. P. v. P. Lakhshmu Reddi (supra). These decisions do not help the respondent as the question that arises in this case has neither been raised nor decided in those cases. In Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd. v. Industrial Devlp. Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (supra), the question was what is meant by reasoned award. Setting out conclusions on issues without discussing the reasons for such conclusion was held to be not reasoned or speaking award. This decision also is not of any lassistance to the responded. Similarly, the decision in Goa, Daman & Diu Housing Board v. Ramakant V. P. Darvotkar : [1991]3SCR904 (supra) interpreting Section 16 of the Act is not relevant for the purpose of this writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. To sum up, unreasoned awards affected by the amendment can be classified as follows :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If reasons are stipulated in agreement</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If reasons are not stipulated in agreement</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Before 19-2-1990After 19-2-1990Before 19-2-1990 After 19-2-I990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Passed and filed in the Court before 19-2-1990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Invalid with consequential result of eitherremitting thematter toArbitrator ordecision bythe Court it self on merits</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Invalid with the consequential result of remitting the matter toArbitrator</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Valid Valid Not affected by the amendment</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Passed before amendment but filed after 19-2-1990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Not applicable-do-Not applicable-do-passed and filed in the Court after 19-2-I990</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Not applicable-do-Not applicable Invalid irrespective of agreement with the consequential result of remitting the matter to Arbitrator<p style="text-align: justify;">11. In the instant case, as it is the admitted case of the parties that the agreement did not provide for reasons in the award; applying the above principles, I hold that the award passed on 2-2-1987, before commencement of the amendment Act i.e., 19-2-1990, is valid even though reasons were not given and neither proviso to Section 14(1) nor first proviso to Section M applies to such award. In view ofthis, I need not go into the question of vires of two provisos. No other point is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">W.P. No. 12938 of 1990 </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The petitioner entered into agreement with the 2nd respondent on 20-7-1981 for supply of cement manufacturing machinery. Clause 11(2) of the agreement provided for referring any dispute, that may arise under it, to arbitration. As certain disputes arose, the petitioner nominated Justice M. S. Apte, a retired Judge of High Court of Bombay, as arbitrator, while the second respondent appointed Sri Y. Ratnakar, Advocate, as arbitrator, Justice V. D. Tuljapurkar, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court was appointed as Umpire. As there was disagreement between the two arbitrators, the matter was referredfor determination by the Umpire who passed award on 22-12-1989 granting petitioner Rs.4,08,084/- together with interest of Rs. 2,82,000-/- but did not give reasons. The petitioner Company filed O.S. No. 99 of 1990 before the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,under Section 14(2) of the Act for making the award Rule of the Court When the matter was pending in the Civil Court, A. P. Amendment Act 1 of 1990 adding provisos to Sections 14(1) and 17 of the Act came into force with effect from 19-2-1990. Apprehending that in pursuance of proviso to Section 14(1) and 1st proviso to Section 17, the third respondent would remit the award to the Umpire for furnishing reasons, the petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the vires of proviso to Section 14(1) and 1st proviso to Section 17 introduced by Act 1 of 1990 and obtained stay of all further proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised the same contentions as urged in W.P. No. 11049 of 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As already held by me, award passed before cormmencement of the amendment Act i.e:, 19-2-1990, is valid even though reasons are not given, if the agreement did not provide for reasons in award. It is the admitted case of the parties that the agreement did not provide for reasons in the award. Thus, in the instant case neither proviso to Section 14(1) nor first proviso to Section 17 applies. In view of this, I need not go into the question of vires of two provisos. Accordingly, this writ petition also has to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed and the Additional Chief Judge, Hederabad and IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, are directed to proceed with O.S. No. 2 of 1988 & O.P. No.41 of 1988 and O.S. No.99 of 1990 respectively and dispose them of in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration Act without reference to the Amendment Act 1 of 1990. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Petitions allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1996AP167',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Andhra Pradesh and Others',
		'sub' => 'Arbitration',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '424011'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 14(2, the Arbitration Act, Section 14, Section 17, Section 14, Section 17, Section 14, Section 17, the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act, Section 17 'Provided, Section 14, Paras 33, the Arbitration Act, the English Arbitration Act, Section 1, Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act, Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act, the Arbitration Act, Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act, Section 17, Section 14(1, Section 14, Section 47, Section 17, Section 14(1, Section 14(1, Section 17, Section 14(1, Section 17, Section 47, Section 14(1, Section 17, Section 17, Section 14', Section 14(1, Section 17, the Amendment Act, Section 17, Section 16 of the Act, Section 14(1, Section 14(2, Section 14(1, Section 17, Section 14(1, Section 17, Act 1 of 1990, Section 14(1, Section 17, Arbitration Act, the Amendment Act 1 of 1990

DATE: 11049 of 1990 2, 1987, 1987, 1988, 8-11-1988, 1988, 1989, 24-11-1989, 1990, 1990, 11049 of 1990, 1990, the 1st, 1940, 1940, 1990, thirty days, 1426, 37, 1940, nearly 7/8 decades, 1958, nearly a decade ago, 1979, 1979, recent years, the 1st, 1426, 1967]1SCR633, 1426, 1426, 1991, 1993, 1990, 1990 12, 22-12-1989, 1990, 1990, 11049, 1990, 1988, 1990

ORDINAL: second, second, second, second, second, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, 2nd, second, 1st, third, 1st, first

CARDINAL: 23, 2, 988, 2, 3,05,006,/-, 249, 387, 41, 30, 453, 1, 17, 3, 26, 19-2-1990, 1, 2, 17, 1, 5, 574, 5, 6, two, one, 38, 5, 1988]3SCR366, two, 19, two, two, 19-2-1990, 19, 19-2-1990, 19, two, 19-2-1990, 1, 658, 3, 694, 1993]1SCR229, 1991]3SCR904, 1991]3SCR904, 19-2-1990After, 19-2-1990, 19, 19, 19-2-1990Not, 19, 2, 19, two, 20, two, 17, 1990.14, 19, two, 2

PERSON: Rege, Krishna Rao, G. Venkat Rarna Sastry, A. P. Amendment Act 1, Krishna Rao, Sri K. Jagannatha Rao, Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, Reasons, Bench, Evershed M.R., Poole Corpn, Administrative Law, Administrative Law, Bench, Bench, Sri M. Chandra Sekhara Rao, him.5, M. Chandrasekhara Rao, P. Lakshmu, Industrial Devlp, Corpn, Ramakant V. P. Darvot-kar, Bench, Amareswari, Sarma, G. Radhakrishna Rao, P. Ramakrishnam Raju, Industrial Devlp, Corpn, Ramakant V. P. Darvotkar, M. S. Apte, Sri Y. Ratnakar, V. D. Tuljapurkar, A. P. Amendment Act 1, Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry

ORG: High Court, the Court of Additional, Hyderabad, Umpire, O.S. No, Court, O.P. No, O.P. No, Court, C.R.P. No, Court, the City Civil Court, the Civil Court, W.P., Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, Sri Y. Siva Rama Sastry, Arbitrators, Sections 14, Court, the Arbitration (Anrjhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, Court, Court, Court, Court, Supreme Court, Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors, AIR 1990, The Supreme Court, Court, the Indian Law Commission, Government, Parliament, Court, the Court of Appeal, Court, Court, the Indian Law Commission, Parliament, Court, the High Court, the High Court, Court, all.the High Courts, Court, Court, Court, Government, State, State, Government, State, Statute, The Supreme Court, Court, Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., 1st Proviso to Section 17, Court, Court, the Supreme Court, Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors, AIR 1990 SC, Legislature, Legislature, the Supreme Court, Bungo Steel Furniture, Union of India, Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors, AIR 1990 SC, Legislature, Court, Court, Legislature, Legislature, Act, the Supreme Court, Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors, AIR 1990 SC, Court, Court, Court, Court, Legislature, Legislature, Courts, Court, Engineer, Gayatri Engineers Company, State, A.P., Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd., Orissa Ltd., Goa., Daman & Diu Housing Board, Superintending Engineer, Gayalri Engineers Company, Court, Justice, Courts, Court, Amendment, Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd., Orissa Ltd., Goa, Daman & Diu Housing Board, Court, Court, Court, Section M, High Court, the Supreme Court, Umpire, Umpire, O.S. No, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, Court, the Civil Court, Umpire, Hederabad, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, O.S. No, O.S. No.99

GPE: Bombay, O.S., LA, United Kingdom, Proviso, India, England, U.S.A., Australia, us, Delhi, Governmental, India, Proviso, Bombay

QUANTITY: 19-2-, 19-2-1990, 19-2-1990, 19-2-, 19-2-

NORP: Objects

FAC: Brownsea Haven Properties, Food Corpn