Holding

A specific question of law referred to the arbitrator is binding on the parties, and the award cannot be set aside on the ground of an apparent error of law; the compensation claim is covered by the arbitration clause.

Summary

Tarapore & Co. entered into a works contract with Cochin Shipyard Ltd. for the construction of a building dock, which included a clause (Clause 40) referring all disputes to a sole arbitrator. The contractor later claimed compensation for the increased cost of imported pile‑driving equipment and technical know‑how, and the dispute was referred to the arbitrator, who awarded Rs. 99 lakhs with interest. The respondent challenged the award on the grounds of insufficient stamp duty and alleged that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by mis‑interpreting Clause 40. The High Court set aside the award, but the Supreme Court held that the parties had specifically referred a question of law concerning the arbitrator's jurisdiction to the arbitrator, making his decision binding and not subject to being set aside on the basis of an apparent error of law. The Court also found that the compensation claim fell within the wide‑ranged arbitration clause. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order was reversed, and the award was restored as a rule of the court.

Issues considered

Whether a specific question of law referred to an arbitrator is binding on the parties and precludes the court from setting aside the award on the ground of an apparent error of law.
Whether the claim for compensation for the increase in cost of imported pile‑driving equipment and technical know‑how is covered by Clause 40 of the General Conditions of Contract.
Whether the award was insufficiently stamped under the Kerala Stamp Act.
Whether the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by misconstruing Clause 40.

Legislation cited

Arbitration Act, 1940s. 14, s. 16(1)(c), s. 17, s. 30, s. 33
Kerala Stamp Acts. Art.12, s. Art.14

Subjects

ArbitrationSpecific question of lawJurisdiction of arbitratorAward set‑asideError of law apparent on the faceWorks contractCompensation claimClause 40Without prejudiceStamp duty

Judgment

i18
A TARAPORE.& COMPANY
·.
. v,

COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD. COCHIN & ANR.
B
March 6, 1984

. [D.A. DBSAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDUY, JJ.J -~ .

c
Arbitration Act 1940 (Act X of 1940) section 16(/)(c), 30 and 33.
.
Arbitration-Works conlract~Construction of BNilding Dock and Repair
.
Dock-Reference _of specific question 'of law to arbitrator-Arbitrator framing
"issue-Parties agreeing to· issue being decided-=-Award 1f could be set aside on
ground of error. of law on. face of award.

Interpretation:.
D
Agreement-Works contracr ·of large magnitude-Over-Simplification of
clauses impermissib/e.-Agreement predicated upon and agreed fact silllation-
Situation ceasing to exist-Agreement to that extent rendered irrelevant and
otiose.

Words & PhraseJ:
E
.'Without prejudice'-Meaning of-'claim arising out of contract'-'Relating
to the contract'-Meaning of___.;.C/auie 40 General Conditions of Contract.

The appelJant and the resi;>ondents entered into a contract for the cons-
truction of Building 1)ock; ·CJ a use 40 _of the General Conditions of Contract
F entered into between -the parties, provided that "all questions and dispute\
relating to the meaning of the Specifications Estimates Instructions, Designs,
Drawing-----~nd the quality of the workmenship or materials used in tlte
work or its to any Other questions, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in
any way <irising out_ of or relating to the" contract or otherwise concerning the
execution whether arising during the progress of the work or ofter completion-
---shall ·be-referred to the Sole Arbitrator etc~" During the. implefilentation
G of the works contract, disputes arose between the parti~s-in respect of a ~laim
for compensation on account of the increase in the cost of imported pile-d~iving
equipment and teclmic31 know-how fees. Correspondence was exchanged 'bet·
ween the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 and the dispute was referred to the
Sole Arbitrator. The polnt referred were: (1) Whether the c1airn of compen·
sation for increase in the cqst of im-portcd pile driving equipinent and technical
know-bow fees would fall within the purview of the first para of clause 40 of the
.ff General .Conditions of COntract ; and (2), if it does, the quantum of con1pen- .,
sati~n. if aQy~ to which the appeUallt would be ·entitled to. The arbitrator
entered upon the reference and after· hearing the parties. gave bis award. The

•
•

TARAPORE CO. JI. COCHIN SHIPYARD 119
arbitrator hel,d that the appellant was entitled to compensation for the increase
in the cost of in1ported pile drawing equipment and technical know-how fees by
a sum of Rs. 99 lakhs which amount shall be payable with interest@ 9'J/2%
The award was typed orl stamp paper of the value of Rs. 150/-. The arbitratC!r
forwarded the award to both the parties .

. The appellant moved 3. petition under'sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration
Act, in the Court.Of the Sub.orCinate Judge for filing the award and for making B
it a rule of the Court, while the respondent moved a petition ,under sections 30
and 33 for setting aside the award contending that: (-1) the aw"ard was insuffi-
ciently stamped, and (2) the arbjtrator had exceeded his jurisdiction by miscon..
struing clause 40. The s'ubordinate Judge negatived both the coil.tentions. Jt.
was held that the respondent having submitted the question ,..,hether the dispute
raised by the appellant was covered by the arbitration clituse ; could not con-
trovert the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to decide the dispute ; and the aw~rd of c
the arbitrator was modified in the matter of interest frOm 9'1 /2 per "cent as awar-
ded by the ar'Qitrator to 6 per cent, and the award was made a fuie of the
Court.

The respondent preferred an appeal to the Rish Court, and a Division
Bench, agreed· with the Subordinate Judge on the question of insufficiency of
stamp. It however held that the question ·whether th~ dispute was arbitrable or D
not could not be finally decided ~Y the arbitrator because it was a matter relating
to-his jurisdiction, and that the arbitrator cannot by an erroneous interpretation
or construction of the ~clau:e confer jurisdiction on himself and that the court
can go into the qµestion whether the matter in dispute between the parties was
covered by the arbitration clause_. It finally held tha,t even though the arbitration
clause was very wide, the dispute as to compensation for increase in the cost of
impo_rted pile diiving equipment and technic3.I know-how fees could not be cove-
·E
red by the arbitration clause because under clause 26 every plant, machinery
and equipment had to be provided by the contractor and any ·rise or escalation
in the price Of suCh equip!nent or machinery, cannot be the subject matter of
compensation. by the respondent. The apt)e_al wai therefore allowed, and,.the
trial court's order, ma_kiog the award a rule of the court was set aside and
dir~ted that the award be returned to the parties. F
In. the appeal to this Court it was contended on beh'l)f of the appellant,
that though Sec. 16( l)(e) of the Arbitrlllion Act may permit the court to remit
or set aside-the award on the ground that there is an error of law ,ap193.rent on
the face of it, yet where a specific question of law has been referred to the
arbitrator for deci~ion, the fact that the-deci~ion is 'ei-roneous does not make the
award bad on its face so as tO permit its being set aside.. As a specific question G
of law touching upon the jurisdiction of the ·arbitrator was speficially referred to •
the arbitrator for his decision, the decision of the arbitrator is binding on the
parties and the court cannot proceed to inquire whether upon a true construction
of the arbitration clause, the dispute referred to the arbitrator for arbitration
would be covered by the arbitration clause so as to clothe the arbitrator with the
jurisdiction to arbitrate upon the dispute.
H
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the jurisdiction or the
arbitrator cannot be left to the decision of the arbitrator so as to be binding on
•

iio , SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R..
the parties and it is always for the court to decide whether the arbitrator had
jurisdiction to decide the dispute, and that the arbitrator cannot by a miscon-
, structioo of the, arbitration agreement clothe himsClf with or confer upon himself
the jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

B
Allowing the Appeal ;
..
HELD : 1. A specific question of law touching the jurisidiction of the
arbitratOr was specifically referred to the arbitrator and therefore the arbitrator's
decision is binding on ~}le parties and the award cannot be s.et aside on the sole
.ground that there· was an error of law apparent on the face of the award. 1t is
..
. --\.

also established that the claim for compensation made by the contr~ctor which
led to the dispute VflS covered by the arbitration clause. The quantum of com~
·C pensation awarded by the arbitrator .was never disputed nor questioned. [170E·Fl

2. A question of law may fi~ure before an "Brbitrator in two wiys. It may
arise as an incidental point "'.hile deciding the main disput~ referred to the
ar"itratOr or in a given case parties may refer a specific question of law to· the ·
arbitrator for his decision. [137G·H]

D Russel : Law of Arbitration. Twentieth Edition p. 22 ,· Halsbury's Laws of
England Vol. 2 Para 623 4th Edition referted to.

3. Arbitration has been considered a civilised. way of resolving disputes
avoiding court proceedings. There is no reason why the parties should be
precluded from .referring a specific question of law to an ar bitratoi for his
decision and agree to be bound by the same. This approach manifests faith
E of parties ill the capacity of·the tribunal of their choice to decide even a pllre
question of law. If they do so, with eyes wide open, and there is nothing to •
preciude the parties from doing. sq. then there is no reason why the 'court s4ould
iry to impose its view of law· superseding the view of the Tribunal whose
decision the parties agreed to. abide by. On-principle it appears distinctly clear
that wben a specific question of la"w is referred ~o an arbitrator for -bis decision
F including the one. touching upon the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. the decision of
the arbitrator would be bindi'ng on both the pa'rties and it would not be open
to any of the two pafties to wriggle out of it by contendiOg that the arbitrator
cannot clutch at.or confer jurisdictiOn upon himself by mis-construing the arbi..
tration agree!llent. [I 38E' GJ . ·

4. If a question 'of law is specifically 1eferred and it becomes- evident
G · th;t the parties desired to have a decision on the f!'ecific question from the
• arbitrator rather than one from the cOurt, then the court will not i[herferf with
the award of the arbitrator on the ground that there is an error or law apparent
on the face of the award even if the view of law taken. by the arbitrator does not
accord with the view of the court. [147F]

B Kelantan Government v. Duff Development Co. Ltd. 1923 All E.R. 349: Re
Kins and Duveen, [1913]-2 K.B. 32: F.R. Absa/om Ltd. v. Great Western
(London)Garden Village Society Ltd., (1933] All E.R. 616; Durga Prasad Chamria
TARAPORB'co. v. COCHIN SHIPYAjtD 121
. and Anr. v. Sewkishendas Bhattar and Ors: AIR 1949 Privy Council 334; Seth·
A
ThawardasPherumalv. The Union of ludia; (1955] 2 S.C.R. 48; M/s. Alopi
·Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. Tbe Union of India, (1960] 2 S.C.R. 783; Champsey
Bhara and Company v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Wea~ing Company· Ltd. : Law
Report 50 J.B. 324; Union ofJndia v. A.L. Rallia "Ram., (1%4] 3 S.C.R. 164;
Mis. Kapoor NiloJc.heri., Co-op. Dairy Farm Society Ltd. v. Union of lndia and
.. Others., AIR 1973 S.C. 1338; N. Chellappafl v. Secretary, Kewla State Electricity
Board & Anr., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 811; Produce Brok@rs Co. Ltd. v. Olympia Oil B
and Cake Co. ltd., (1914-15] All E.R. 133; Attorney General For Manitoba
v: Kelly and Others.. (1922) Hll E.R. 68; Hirji Mulji v. CJieong Yue Steamship
" )- I
Co.Ltd., (1926] All E.R. 51; lfeyman & Anr. v. Dmwins Ltd., (1942] 1 All E.R._
337; Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth & Ors. v. Chiniamanrao Balaji & Anr., (1954] 5
S.C.R. 480; Dr. S.B. Dutt v. University of Delhi., [195,8] S.C.R. 1236; referred
to.
c
5. The expression 'Without prejudice' carries a technical meaning depen-
ding upon the context in which it is used. An action taken without prejudice
to· one's right cannot" necessarily mean that the entire action1 can be ignored, by
the party taking the same. [148F-G]

In the instant case, i'n the context in which the expressio·a iwithout prejudice
9

is used, it would only mean that the respondent reserved the right tO contend
D
before the arbitrator that the dispute is not covered by ihe arbitration clause .. Jt
does not appear that. what was a contention ·that no specific question \\;3-S
specifically referred to the arbitrator, On a. proper reading of the correspori-
dence, and in the setting in which the term 'wiihout prejudice' is used; it only
means that the respondent reseived to itself the right to contend before the
arbitrator that a dispute raised or ,the claim made by the contractor was not E
covered by the arbitration clause. N9 other me" '1•.ng :can be assigned to it.·
[1480-E]

6. In works contract of such magnitude, and which have been ·undertaken
by an Indian Contractor for the first time negotiations prior to the finalisation of
the contact and the correspondence leading to the formation of cOntract supply
the basis· on which the contract was finally entered into. Undoubtedly, if in the F
final written contract, .thei:,.e is something contrary to the basic understanding
_ during the formative stage of the contract, the written contract would prevail.
Buf if the co"ntract does not indicate to the contary and the assumptions appear-
ed to be the found{ltion of the contract, that aspect cannot be overlooked while
determining what were the obligations· undertaken the formal contract.
[151U-!52Bl
G
7. Over-simplification of the clauses of the contract involving works of
large magnitude is impermissible. kThe whole gamut of discussions, negotiations
and correspondence must be taken into consideration to arrive at a true nicaning
of what was agreed to between the parties. [156F]

In the instant case, there is no room for doubt that the parties agreed that H
the investment of the contractor under this head would be Rs. 2 crores and the
tendered rates were predicated upon and co-related _to this understanding. [156G]
Iii SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R..
A 8. When ~ri agreeme~t is predicated. upon an agreed fact situati~n, if the
latter cea5es to exist the agreement to that extent becomes irrelevant of otiose.
[1560]

9. Phrases suGh as 'claim arising out of contract' ot. 'relating to the con·-
tract'· or 'Concerniti:g the cotract' -on proper construction would mean that if ..
B whiie·intertaining or rejecting the claim or ihe dispute in relation to claim ma:Y
be entertained or rejected after reference 10 the contract, it is a claim arising out
of contract. The· language of clause 40 shows that. any claim arising out of the -'> •
contract -iri relation to estimates made in the contract would be covered by the
arbitration clause. If it becomes necessary to have recolirse to th6 contract to ·
settle the di~pllte One way or the other then certainly it can be said that it is a
c dispute arising out of the con"act. [157F-G]

In the instant case, the .arbitration clause is so widely worded as disputes
arising out of .the contract. or in relation tq the cont'ract or execution of the·
works that "it would comprehend, within its cOmpass a claim for cOmp·en-
sation related to estimates and arising out of the cOntract: [157H] ·"""'(

D
10· (i) A dispute, the determination of which turns on the true construction
of the contract,.. wou!d also seem to. be a dispute under arisin~ out or.:or concer-
ning the contract. The test is tf\at if in setling a dispUt~, a reference to the
contract is necessary, such a dispute would be covered by. the arbitration
clause. [158D-E]

E
A.M. Mair & Ca. v. Gordhandas Sqgarmu/l., [1950] S.C.R, 792; Ruby
Gef!eral Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pearey' Lal Kumar And Another; [1952] S.C.R.
501; referred to.

ii. Where the parties .are at one· in asserting that they entered into a
F bindin.s contract, but a difference has aris~n between them whether there bas
been a breach by one side or the other, or whether circumstances hnve arisen
which have dischar.ged ·one ··or both parties from ~further petformance; such
.differences should be "regarded as differences which have arisen 'in.respect of' or
'With regard to' of 'under' the contract, and an arbitration clause which uses
these, or similar expressions should be contrue~ acc0rdingly. "[1~9B-~]

G
Union of India v. Salween Timber Construction (India) & Ors., [1969] 2
S.C.R. 224; Heyman & Anr. v. Darwins Ltd., [1942] A.C. 356 at 366; Astro
Vencedor Co1npania Naviora S.A. of. Panan1a v. Mabanaft G.M.8.H. The
Diamianos., [1971] 2 Q.B. 588; Gunter Henck v. Andre & CIE. S.A., [1970] 1
Lloyd's Law Repoi:ts 235; referred to

In the instant case, from the pleadings, it clearly transpires that both the
parties had recoutse to the contract. It is satisfactorily established that the.
claim made by the contractor would be covered by the arbitration clause. [160B]
tARA!'oRE Co. V•COCHIN SHIPYARD (Desai J.) 123

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3023 of
1980. A

• . Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 21st August, 1980 of the Kt;rala High Court in M.F.A. No. 409
' of 1979.
<
' , F.S. Nariman, A.N. Haksar, · T. Raghvan, R.F. Nariman, B
' ./
V.A. Bobde & K.R. Nambiar, foi"the Appellant.

G.B. Pai, P.K. Kumar, A.K. Sharma, As/wk Mathur and
Pa~veen Kumar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was .delivered by c
DESAI, J. In this appeal by. special I.eave a very interesting
.,_ question ih the field oflaw of arbitration which 'honest man dread
more, than the dreaded law suits' arises for our c~nsideration.

First respondent Cochin Shipyard Limited ('respondent' for D
short) invited tenders for construction of Building Dock at Cochin.
As there was only one ~tender that of Tarapore & . Company,· the
appellant, the respondent called fresh tenders somewhere in July,
1971. In December, 1971; the respondent invited tenders for cons-
truction of a Repair Dock also at Cochin. There were two. tenders E
for Building Dock; namely, one of the appellant and one by
M/s National Building Construcfion Corpbration, a Government
oflndia undertaking, the value of the tender Of the latter being ·
double that of the appellant. For the construction of the Repair
• Dock, the only tender was of the appellant. 1n view or th~ limited
nuinber of tenders. received, · the appellant was invited to negotiate F •
the terms of tender. The v_alue of the works to be executed was
. ·over Rs. 24 crores. In view of the huge investment in the project,
' the tenders were examined by a committee called the Tender Com-
mittee conslituied in accordance with the approval of the Ministry
of Shipping and Transport for examining and evaluating the tenders
r~ceived for the Building Dock and the Repair Dock. The Tender G
Committee taking note of the poor response to the invitation to
tender and costiy affair decided to accept the tender of the appel-
lant inter alia for the ·reasons (i) that works of such complexity and
magnitude have not bee.n undertaken before by any Indian contrac-; H
tor, (ii) that the plant and equipment required for the work are not
available indigenously, (iii) that if the contractor is to procure the
124 ~UPREME COURT REPORTS (19s4j 3 s.c.a.
A specialised equipment · r~quired for this work, there ·is hardly any > -,..,

assurance that after these works are over, he would find any sub-
stantial use for the sai:ne, (iv) that excavation. and subsequent cons-·
tructio~ involve de-watering which introduces considerable ·amount
of uncertainty and th~t during the discussions; the apprehension of
the tenders of this kind was· voiced and noticed by' the Committee,

..
B .and (v) that RCC Piling also requires .highly skilled and complex
technical . operations and it involves .. a large eiement of risk and
uncertainty in the· work. Both the tenders of the appellant were
. accepted, and contracts were entered into between the parties." Both
the parties while entering into contracts. were aware anc\ conscious
~ of the fact that equipment and technical know-how would. have to
c be imported involving a huge outlay of foreign exchange. Appellant-
contractor quoted rates .on t.wo aiternative basis depending-upon
whether it had to import equipment and know-how at its cost invol- .
ving Rs. 2 crores in foreign exchange or the equipment ·and know-
how wer.e tci be imported by the respondent at.its ·cost and made
D available for use of the appellant in which case the appellant would
be liable t.o pay hire charges for the pile. driving plant at the rate of
Rs. 23/- per metre of ·600 mm· dia. RCC cast-in-situ pipe' and
Rs. 16/- per metre of 500 mm di:\. RCC cast-in-situ pipe and at the.
rate of 300 per .tonne, of steel sheet· piies driven to be recovered
' from the running bills payable to the appellant.contractor. The -
E · ·. appellant was gjven to understand b:t a. note in the invitation to
• tender that foreign exchange in yen credit to th;: tune of Rs. 38 lacs
is earmarked for the purchase of construction equipment, accessories
etc. from Japan for works of Building Dock, Repair Dock1 the three
Quays etc. On January 24, 1973, work· order for Building Dock
and Repair Dock was .issued. by the respondent in favour of appel-
F . !ant and in this .work order as recommended by the Tender Commit-
tee, the respondent adopted the' alternative B as set out iri the ten-·
der, namely, that the contractor was to procure the equipment and
know-how at a cost of about Rs. 2 crores in foreign exchange. In
order.to make this aspect specific, ·additional condition No. 31 was
incorporated in the works order in order to provide for the expense
· to be illcurred and the amount of foreign exchange needed for im~
porting equipmept and technical kllow-how, relevant portion . of
.wl!ich reads as under : '
. ' "Requisite foreign exchange, for importing piling plant ·. ··
H >>and machinery, spares, technicaf, know-how· and> hiring of
experts necessary for both the.Dock Works vide Work Order ·.
No. 130l9/l/71-W-II dated Janual'J 24, 1973 for Building.
...
J

TARAPORECO. v. COCHIN SHIPYARD (Desai J.) 125

Dock etc. and· Work Order No. 13012/15/71-W-II dated A
January. 24, 1973 for Repair Dock. etc., amounting to about
Rs 2.00 crores in all wiUbe made availa\>le to the contractor
f~om the 11th Yen Credit subject to his getting indigenous •
clearance and providing detailed justification. The details
of such procurement shall be·fnrnished by the t:ontractor as
soon as they are finalised." B

• f • •
In view of the huge investment, it was agre.ed that the respon-
dent would make an.advance payment of75% of the value of old
. machinery and 90% of the value of new machinery brought to site
by the Contractor and in -0rder to secure this advance payment, c
equipment would be hypothecated by the Contractor (o the respon- ·
dent and the advanoe payment were to carry interest at 9.1/2% p.a.
on the outstanding balance of advance. The mode of recovery was
also specified. The formal contract was signed on January 29, 1973
which included an arbitration clause to which we would turn a
little later. b

· It so happened that the required pile driving equipment includ-
ing the technical know-how against 1lth Japanese Yen credit were
not available. The respondent also made inqulres in this behalf,
but without 'success. Ultimately, International Foundation Group, E
Holland agreed to provide the rate of equipment conforming more
or less to the same specification for which clearance.was sought and
received. from the Government of India. After the respondent •
certified that the equipment and know-how ofiei:ed by International
Foundation Group. Holland conform to the earlier cleara11ce and
that the same equipment being not indigenously available or against
11th Japanese Yen Credit, the respondent requested the Govern- '
ment of India to give necessary clearance to the appellant to import
the equipmeat. This approval was received on Septembet 1, 1973
and the foreign exchange to the extent or Rs 211.80 lakhs equal to
9,4%2.700. Dutch Florins was released in favour of the appellant.
The entire imported equipment was received in four consignments
between March/July 1974. During the intervening period, there
were variations in the rate· of exchange and therefore the foreign
exchange cost of equipment alone in· terms of rupees worked ~ut at
Rs. 177.50 lakhs and of the technical know-how fees payable in 11
instalments worked out at Rs. 105 lakhs. The custom duty went H
up by .Rs. 21 lakhs as a consequence of the increase in rupe_e value
• 0 f the imported equipment in terins of Dutch F 1orlu,
. . . ' . . . .
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R.
A The appellant made .a tentative claim in the amount of
Rs. 61.27 lakhs from the·respondent on account of increase in cost
of pile driving equipment and technical know-how fees on the
.. ·ground that the contracto{ was entitled to be compensated by the
respondent foi,)he same. In. the letter dated May 28,1975, the
appellant bas stated that the 'tendered rates were. based on certain
B
total cost of machines which has since gone up considerably render-
ing the rates no longer workable. The l&l'Pellant' had .provided for
a cost of I 50 lakhs of rupees for the equipment and ihe life of the
equipment was !akin as 12,000 hours and its probable period of
engagement on this job was taken as 8,000 hours. ·On this basis'
c two-thirds of the cost of the equipment will be written off by way
of depreciation on this job.' ·It was also stated that there is an
increase in the fees for the technical know-how. The letter con-
cluded by saying that the loss sustain.ed by the appellant upto May
15,1975 on account of variation in the rate of foreign· exchange was
Rs. 61,27,'3!7 and requested the'.respondent to compensate the loss
D aileast upto the tune of Rs. 45 lakhs which is approximately 75%
of the loss suffered by the contractor in this behalf. The respondent
'responded to this letter as per its letter daied July 2,1975 saying
· that the letter dated July 14,1972 of the appellant which forms part
of the contract documents clearly recites that the total foreign ex-·
change required by the contractor for the equipment, spares, techni-
E cal know-bow. and hiring of exp~rts, was expected to be about Rs. 2
crores and that the expenditure incurred by the contractor in this
behalf. so· far has been less· than Rs. 2 crores and in the circum-
.stancesit was found difficult to accept the position that the tender
was based on the assumptions indicated in the letter under reply
and that the rates for the pile driving should for the future he revis-
F
ed. there ensued further correspondence between the parties.
Ultimately, the appellant by its letter dated March 1, 1976 informed
the respondent that its claim for compensation for increase in the
. cost of imported pile driving eqµipment and technicai know-how
fees has not been entertained for over a year. It was further stated
G that 'inasmuch as the dispute has thus arisen between us re&ardiflg
the above claim, we are invoking the provisions for arbitration in
our contracts and ret;erring this dispute to arbitration.' On March
·17, 1976 Chief Engineer of the respondant replied saying that the
matter as set out in the letter dated March 1,1976 invoking arbitra-
.~.
tion clause is receiving tlieir immediate attention and the appellant
H will hear shortly in this be))alf. On March 29,1976, the respondent
wrote to the .appellant denying the claim for compensation of the
appellant. Simultaneously the 'respondent framed three point8
. .
•
TARAPORE co. v. COCHIN SHIPYARD (Desai J.) 127

covering the dispute so raised for reference to and decision by the
A
arbitrator. The letter also sets out as required by Clause 40 a panel
of three names from which anyone can be chosen by the.appellant
as the sole arbitrator. The appellant by its letter dated April
1~19_76 :Vhile refuting the contention of the respondent that the dis-
pute would not be covered by Clause 40 i.e. arbitration clause in B
the contract, stated that the proper course would be to.refer the
· dispute that has arisen betwee.n the parties' to the decisfon of the
a.rbitrator a11d not any particular issue or issues. Ultimately froni
' )
amongst the three names indifated by the respondent the appellant
• selected .Shri C. Srinivasa Rao, Chief Bridge· Engineer, Southern
Railway, Madras to be the Sole Arbitrator to tlecide the dispute. c
On receipt of this letter the respondent referred the dispute to Shri
C. Srinivasa Rao as Sole Arbitrator. While referring the dispute to
the sole arbitration of Shri C. Srinivasa Rao, the respondent retain-
ed the three points of reference set out in the letter dated March
y 29,1976 but added one more. The· Arbitrator entered upon the re-
ference on June 2,1976. On being called upon by the Arbitrator, D
the appellant filed its statement of claim on June 19,1976. The
appellant claimed Rs. 2,03,47,.266 ·as per th., Schedule to the State-
ment of Claim on account of increase in the cost of·eq'uipment and
technical know-how fees. The respondent filed its reply to the
Statement of Claim on July 19,197,,
E
'
The·points/disputes referred by the parties to the sole arbitra-
tor read as under ;

"!. Does the claim ·of Messrs. Tarapore & Co. on F
Cochin Shipyard Ltd., for compensation for increase in the
cost of im,Ported pile driving equipment and technical know-
how fees referred to in clauses (2) and (3) hereunder fall
within the purview of the first paragraph of Clause 40 of the
General Conditions of Contract entered into between the two
parties ? c
/
2. If the answer to (1) above is in the affirm~tive, in
terms of the provisions· of the contract are Messrs .. Tarapore
& Co. entitled to compensation for increase in the cost of im-
. ported pile driving equipment and technical know-how fees
to be paid to them by Cochin Shipyard Ltd.? If so, what ~s
the amo11nt ~
128 SUPR~ME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R.

3. The dis1mte t.hat has arisen between Messrs. Tara-
pore & Co., and Cochin Shipyard Ltd.· regarding the claim
·of M/s. Tara pore & Co., for compensation for increase in
the cost of the imported pile driving equipment and the tech-
nical know-how fees.
B
• •
,4. "Costs'~
'r-
Parties appeared before the Arbitrator through their respective J.
counsel. The Abitrator gave its Awatd on July 6,1977. On Point
No. 1, the Arbitrator' held as under: • '·
c •
"The claim· of Messrs. Tarapore and Company on
Cochin Shipyard Limited for compensat.ion for increase in
the cost of imported pile driving equipment and technical
know-how fees falls within the purview of the first paragraph
of Clause 40 of the General Conditions of Contract entered· y
'I>. into between the parties."

On Point No.· 2, the Arbitrator . held that the appellant.
'Messrs. Tarapore and Company are: entitled to compensation by
the Cochin Shipyard Limited for the increase in the cpst of i111por-
ted pile driving equipment and the.. technical know-how fees by a
sum of Rs. 99·1akhs only which amount shall be payable with in-
terest at 9.1/2% per 'annum from this date till date of payment or
decree, whichever i~ earlier'. On Point No. 3, the decision recorded
was 'that it jg covered by the decision on Points (1) and (2)'. On
Point No. 4, on the question of costs, the Arbitrator having deter-
F mined his fees and incidental expenses directed both the parties to
·bear the same eq:ually. '(he Award was typed on a stamp paper of
the valµe of Rs .. 150/- at Madras. j3y his letter·dated Nil July, 1977,
the Sole Arbitrator foFWarded the award to both the parties."

G The appellant moved a petition under Secs. 14 and 17 of the
Arbitration Act in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam
for filing the award and for making it a .·rule of the court. On
October 7;1977 the respondent moved O.P. 81 of 1977 being a com-
bined petition under Secs. 30 and 33 of the Arbitratioo Act before
the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam praying for setting aside the
H award. · The prayer for setting aside the award was fonnded on two ,
groui1\ls; {l) that the award is insufficien!lY stamped and (2) that the . '
fl,r1;>itrator has exceeded ·bis iuriuliction by misconstruin(l Clause 40

'
•

. .
TARAPORE co. v. COCHIN SHIPYARD (Desai J.) 129

of the General Conditions of Contract (Arbitration clause for
short),

The learned Subordinate Judge noted the fact that the award
was originaJly engrossed on a stamp paper of Rs. 150/- but before
filing the ·award in the court on 'August 4, 1977, the Arbitrator on · B
August f,1977 affixed additional stamp of Rs. 14,722.50 p. which
would be the requisite stamp under Art. 12 read with Art. J 4 of the
. )- Kerala Stamp Act. .The learned Subordinate Judge accordingly
negatived the contention of the .respondent that the award was
insufficiently stamped. On the second point, the learned J~dge held ·
that the respondent having subn:iitted the question whether the dis-' C.
pute raised by the appellant was covered by the arbitration clause
cannot be permitted to controvert lhe jurisdiction of the Arbitrator
.to decide this dispute and accordingly, negatived the. contention of
the respondent. The learned Judge after modifying the award of
t,he Arbitrator in the matter of int,rest from 9.1/2% as awarded by • D
the Arbitrator to 6% granted the application of the applicant and .
made the award a rule of the cpurt.
•
The respondent preferred M.F.A. 409 of 1979 in, the High ·
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. A Division .Bench of the High
Court agreed with the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of ·E
insufficiency of stamp.· The Division Bench however, after exl?res-
sing- its displeasure about not making a reasoned award by the
Arbitrator proceeded to examine the C()ntent.ion whethei; the arbitra-
tion claUfe covers the dispnte. The court held that the question
whether the dispute is arbitrable or not cannot be finally decided by
· the arbitrator because it is a matter relating to his .jurisdiction. It
was further held that the arbltrawr cannot by an erroneous inter-
pretation or construction of the clause confer jurisdiction on him-
self and the court c.an go into the question whether the matter in
disp)lte between the parties is covered by the arbitration clause.
· The specific contention ort behalf of the appellant that once a speci-
fic question of law is referred to the arbitrator, the parties are G
bound by the de.cision of the arbitrator was negatived by the ·High
Court ·and it was held that as the reiipondent has joined arbitration
under protest, it was not estopped from contestinjl the question and
the award is not binding Qn it if it can be shown that the arbitration
agreement did not cov.er the dispute raised by the appellant. The ·H
court finally held that even though the arbitration clause was very
wide, the dispute as to the compensation for increase in the cost of.
imported pile driving equipment an<l technical kn_ow·how fees woutd·
130 ~\!PREME COURT REPORTS · [1984}3 S.C.R.
A
not be covered by the arbitration clau>e inter.alia on the ground
that by Cl. 26 of the General Conditions of Contract every plant, .
machinery and equipment had to be provided by the contrator and
any rise nr escalation in the price of su.ch equipment or machinery
cannot be the subject matter of compensation by the respondent.
Accordingly, the appeal of the respondent was allowed and the
B
)ud$ment and order of the trial court making the award rule of the
court was set aside. The court directed that the award be returned
to the parties: Hence this appeal by the contractor by special "'- .
· Jeave.

c Before we advert to the rival contentions, it would be advan-
tageous to refer .to the arbitration clause being Clause 40 ~of the
General Conditions of Tender subject to which the contract ;vas
entered into, the relevant portion of which reads as Ul)der ;
•
D "Clause 40. Except where otherwise provided in the
• contract, all questions and disputes relating to the meaning
of the· Specifications, Instructions, designs Drawings herein-
before mel)tioned and as .to the quality or workmanship or
materials used on the work or as to any other questions,
claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising
E
out of or relating to the Contract, Designs, Drawings, Speci,
ficatioqs, Estimates, Instructions, Orders or these conditions
or otherwise concerning
.· . .
the works or the execution or failure
to execut.e the same,. whethe.r arising during the progress of
the work Qr after completion or abandonment thereof shall,
after. written notice by eitJ;ier party to the contract, to the
either of them, be referred to the .Sole Arbitration of a per-
son appointed by the Chief Project ,Officer of the Cochin
Shipyard Project or the Administrative Head of the Cochin
Shipyard Project at.Jhe time of such appointment by what-
ever designation known, from a panel of names given in
_G Annexure II."
•
Over and above the extfacted portion, ·the clause provides for
the manner and metho'd of appointing tlie sole arbitrator, the conti-
nuance ofthe work during progress of arbitration proceedings, the
H .time and place of holding the arbitration proceedings, the power to ·
enlarge the period for making the award and finality to be attached .'
· to the award of the Arbitrator.
.'
•
•
TARAPORE co. v. COCHiN SHIPYARD (Desai J.) 131

When the arbitration clause was invoked by the appellant, the A
respondfnt did contend that 'the dispute raised by the appellant was
not covered 1!J the arbitration clause. After. specifying its demur,
the respondent formulated the points in dispute on which the
arbitration was invited to give his award. Undoubtedly, the respon-
dent proceeded to formulate the points in dispute betwee.n the
parties on which the Arbitrator was to be invited to give his award B
without prejudice to its right to contend that the dispute is "not
. covered by-the arbitration clause and that the appellant is .not enti-
~led to any compensation in respect of the increase in the cost of
imported pile driving equipment and technical know-how fees. What
is the eifect of referring the specific question of law to arbitration
without prejudice to one's right to co(itehd to the contrary will be
c
presently examined. The fact remains that on the. dispute arising
out of a claim for compensation on account of the increase in the
cost of imported pile driving equipme~t. and technical know-how
fees, the respondent agreed to refer the dispute under two specific
heads to the Arbitrator. The dispute so raised have already been D
extracted. Briefly stated they are : (1) whether the claim for com-
pen~tion would fall within the pµrview of the first para of the
arbitration clause and (2) if it does the quantum of compensation,
if any, to which the appellant would be entitled. Analysin~ the dis,
puies, let it be made distinctly c!eAr th~t the appellant asserted that
its claim for compensation would be governed by the arbitration E
clause and the same wa• specifically denied by the respondent saying
that t\Je claim would be beyond the pµrview of the arbitration
claus;.· On these rival positions, the specific issue was framed
whether the claim for compensation would fall within the purview
of the first part of the arbitratoin clause. This:was the specific dispute
referred to the arbitrator inviting him specifically to decide this F
dispute. If this issue specifically .raises a question as to jurisdiction
,' of the arbitrator to arbitrate upon the dispute set out in Point No.
2, it appears to have 'been specifically referred t.o the Arbittator for
his decision. Parties, therefore, agreed to submit the specific ques- ·
• tion even with· regard to ·the scope, ambit, width and the construction
.G
'of the arbitration clause so as to define its parameters and contours
with a view to ascertaining· whether the claim advanced by the ·• .
-appellant and disputed by the respondent would be covered by the ·
. arbitration clause. Whether. upon its true construction.the arbitra-
,. tion clause would include within its· compass the dispute thus raised
between the parties was specifically put in issue because parties were H
at varian~e about i\. 'Appellant asserted that its claim to compensa-
tion would form the subject matter] of ·arbitration under Clause 40
,.

•
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 3 S.C.R.

A and the respondent contending to the contrary. · While deciding
this dispute, as to th~ scope, width and ·ambit of arbitration clause
vis:a•vis the dispute raised, it is not necessary to decide whether the
Claim was tenable justified or had any substance in it. 'fhat would
fall within the second point of reference to the arbitra,tot which
opens with a sp~ific 'clause that it needs onJy to be de.cided if the
B· answe.r to the first point of reference, namely jurisdiction· of the
arbitrator under Clause 40 is in the affirmative meaning thereby
that the.dispute so,;aised and sub~isting between the Nrties-would
be covered by the arbi~ration agreement. In other words, if the
dispute is covered by)he arbitration agreement, the arbitrator was
further required to decide whether there was any substanc;, in the
c claim made, and if he found some substance in the disputed claim,
to ascertain what amount the appellant would be entitled to recover
as and by way of compensation from the-respondent. The arbitrator
was thus required and called up 0n first to decide whether the dispute
is arbitrable as falling witlfin the width and ambit •or the arbitration .
agreement. If the answer is in the affirtnative, then alone the second,
D
point need be examined. If the answer to the first point ofreference

.. is in the negative in that if the arbitraior weie of the opinion that
the dispnte is not arbitrable as it would not fa II within the sc't>pe,
width afld ambit,· of• the arbitration agreement, it would not be
necessary for him to determine wiether the l>ppellant was entitled
E to recover anything by way of compensation. This aspect is be~g
.
analysed in depth to point out that the parties specificall~. referred.
the question of construction . of arbitratio·n agreement, its ~idth,
ambit and parameters vis-a-vis the dispute raised so as to decide
whether the dispute w~uld fall within· the purview of the arbitration
agreement, in. other w~rds the jurisdiction of the arbitrator..
F
Correspondence placed on record would unmistakably show.
that a specific question- as to the jurisdiction of the arbitr.ator was
specifically referred by the parties to the arbitrator. Appellant-
. contractor by his letter dated March .J, 1976 to the Chief Engit1:eer
of the respondent invited his attention to the claim for compeµsation
G for.increase in cost of pile driving equipment and technical know-how
fees raised about a year.ago and further invited his attention to the
• Jetter dated 6th October, 197~ of the respondent infprming the
appellant that the claim cannot' be entertained. The app2Jlant
)'i. '•
proceeded further to state as under: _
. ' ·"'
H "Inasmuch as a dispute has. thus arisen between us
· regarding the above claim, we are invokills die provisions for ·
•
•
hRAPORE co. v. COCHIN SHIPYARD (Desai f) 133

arbitration in our contracts and referring this dispute to A
arbitration." ~

The respondent by bis letter dated March 17, 1976 informed
the appellant that the matter.raised in the letter dated March 1,1976
in the matter of compensation is receiving their immediate attention
and the appellant will shor\ly hear f1om them in this connection.
Thereafter the respondent by his letter dated March 29,1976 informed
•• > the appellant as under;
•
"We have dealt with the merits of your claims in the .
previous correspo!ltlence on the'· subject and we reitera!e that
no amounts whatever are ·dve to you in respect of these
c
claims. It is also our view that such claim does not fall
·within the purview-of Clause 40 of the General Conditions
of Contract and hence does not qualify for arbitration.

However, in view of your insistence and without D·
prejudice to our position, we propose that, the following be
the issues to be referred to arbitration: '

1. Does the claim of M/s Tarapore & Co., on Cochin
Shipyard Ltd., for compensation for increase in the cost of
imported pile driving equipment and technical know-how fees E
fall within the purview of the first para of CJause-40 of the
General Conditions of Contract entered into between the two ·
parties?

' 2. If the answer to I is in the affirmative in terms of
•
the provisions. of the · concerned contract, are Messrs.
F
Tarapore ~ Co. entitled to compensation for .increase in the
.; cost of imported rile driving equipment and technical know-
how fees to be paid to them py Cochin Shipyard,Ltd.? If so,
what is the amount? ·
G'
3. "Costs."

The respondent proceeded to notify the panel of names and
invited the appellant to choose the arbitrator as agreed to between
the parties and set out in clause 40. The appellant by his letter
dated April 19,·1976 whil~ reasserting that the claim made by it H
· would be covered by Clause 40 further stated that the proper course
would be to refer the dispute that has arisen between thep arties on
•
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984i 3 s.c.R..

A the matter of compensation to the decisio11 of the arbitrator and not
any partfoular issue or issues. It was also sugg<;sted that framing
of the issues will be- the funttio11 of the arbitrator after he enters
upon the reference and after he has the pleadings of both the partie3
before
. him. The ·appellant
. also
. suggested what dispute should be
referred to the arbitrator and set it out as under:
B
"The decision of the dispute that has arisen between
• M/s Tarapore & Co., and the Cochin Shipyard Limited,
regarding the claim of Mfs Tan.ore & Co., for compensation
• for the increase in the cost of t\Ie imported pile driving
. equipment and of the technical know-how fees."
c
The appellant proceeded to ;uggest that Shri C. Srinivasa Rao
· from amongst the panel be appointed· as the Sole Arbitrator .. The
respondent by his letter dated ·April 27/28, 1976 annexing ihree
earlier letters dated March I, 1976, March 29, 1976 and April 19,
D 1976 referred the four points herein before set out for the decision of
.. the arbitrator. \

This correspondence would unmistakably show that while the
appellant wanted· a general reference about its claim, it was the
respondent w_ho now contests that no specific question of law was
E . specifically referred to the .arbitrator for his decision was specific
about the points to be ·referred for· the decision of the Arbitrator.
· T~e first ,roint extracted hereinabove would clearly show that the
-. specific question about the jurisdiction of the· arbitrator to arbitrate
, .\ipon the dispute set out in points Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was specifically
refe~red to the arbitrator .. On the first point, the arbitrator_ had to
I' decide whether the claim made by the appellant and disputdd by the
respondent would be covered by Clause"40 i.e. the.arbitration clause.
In other words, the specific question referred to the Arbitrator was
about" his jurisdiction. to arbitrate upon the disputes covered by
points Nos. 2, 3-.nd 4, if and only"if,_upon a true construction of the
arbitration clause that is first paragraph of Clause 4_0, would cover
G
the disputed claim for. compensation he can enter into the merits of
the dispute and _decide it. It is upon the decision on point No. I that
the arbitrator would have jurisdiction to decide the dispute involved
in points Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The1 first point of reference is clearly a
specific question of law touching upon the jurisdiction · of the
H arbitrator and this was framed anp referred to by none other than,
despite the initial objection of the petitioner, the respondent. There-
fore, the respondent invited the arbitrator by the specific point of -
J
,

TARAPORE co. v. COCHIN Sl{IPYARD (Desai, J.) 135

reference which involves a •specific question of, law touching upon
the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide the same. This becomes
further clear from the. fact that both the learned counsel appearing
before the arbitrator submitted agreed draft issues for the decision
of the arbitrator. The first issue amongst the agreed draft issues
reads as under:
B .
"Does the claim of the claimant fall within the purview
of the purview of the firs\ para of Clause 40 of the General
Conditions of Contract entered into between the two parties? .

This point was not to be incidentally decided· while deciding
the .dispute referred io the arbitrator his jurisdiction to entertain the G.
dispute js questioned. In fact, hereby : the reference of the specific
point of law touching upon the jurisdiction of the arbitrator the
parties invited the arbitrator to decide this specific question. It was
he who was asked by the submission or terms of reference to decide
his jurisdiction first and then proceed to decide the dispute on
merits. We referred to Issue No: 1 in the agreed draft issues only D
to l:iuttress the conclusion that it was at the. instance of the respen-
dent that the arbitrator was called upon to decide · the question of
the scope, ambit and width of arbitration clause the decision on
wh\Ch would confer jurisdiction upon him to decide the· dispute as
to compensation. In this context it would be advantageous to refer
to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the counter statement filed by the res-
pondent before the arbitrator which reads as under:

"11. It is submitted that the claim in question
I.
relating to the increase in the cost of machinery and equip·
ment as also technical know-how fees payble by the
contractors/claimants is· fully outside the purview of the.
.,
contract. There is no liability on the part of the respondent•
to procure the machinery and equipment or technical know-
~- how required by the contractor nor was there any liability to
pay any part of the cost, whether it .be the original assumed
cost or the increased cost. The claim thus is completely G
outside the purview of the ·contract and it is submitted,
· · therefore, that the same does not fall within the purview of
the first para)lfaph of Clause 40 of the General Conditions of
Contract and thus not arbitrable .
• 12. It is submittedthat the question of arbitrability of the
' ·.dispute should be 'decided as a preliminary· point before proceeding
with the other issues."
•
136 SUPREMB?COURT REPORTS (1984] 3 s.c.R..
A The formulation of the specific question of law by the respon·
dent along with its suggestion to dec.ide it as a preliminary issue and
.becoming a party to the agreed draft issue No .. I would conclusively
· establish. that the specific question of law touching upon the ·
jurisdiction of the arbitrator was referred to the arbitrator for his
de~ision. Therefore, the conclusion is lnescapable that a specific
B question of law touching upon the jurisdiction of the arbitrator which
is indisputably a question construction of Cl. 40 and therefore a
question 6f law was specifically referred by the parties to the
arbitrator for his decision and by the terms of Clause 40 agr~ed to '
0

abide by his decision as final andibinding.
c Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned counsel for the- appellant urged "that
Sec. 16(1) (c) may permit the court to remit or set aside the award
on the ground that there is an error of law apparent on the face of
it, yet where a specific question of law has been referred to the
arbitrator for decision, the fact that the decision is erroneous do·es
not make the award bad on its face so as to permit its being set"aside.
Expanding the submission, it was urged that a decisibn on a question
of law by an arbitrator may be given in two · different and distinct
situations; firstly where while deciding a dispute referred to him
incidentally. a question of law may arise which an arbitrator )llay
decide in order to dispose of the refefence and if in such a situation
E any error of law appears- on the face of the award, the c~urt can
interfere with the award. But.there is an altogether an independent
and a distinct situation in which a question of law might arise such
. as where the parties to the dispute may frame the specific question of
iaw and refer it to the Arbitrator for his decision. In the later \
situation, it was urged that the decision of the Arbitrator even if
F err~neous would not permit the court to interfere with the award.
Proceeding along it was urged that in thi.s case. a specific question of
Jaw touching upon the jurisdiction of the arbitrator was specifically
referred to the Arbitrator for his decision and therefore, the decision
of the Arbitrator is binding on the parties and the court cannot
proceed to inquire whether upon a true construction of the arbitra·
G
tion clause. · the dispute referred .to the Arbitrator for arbitration
would be covered by the" arbitration clause so as to clothe the
arbitrator with the jurisdiction to arbitrate upon.the ;disl'ute.

Mr. Pai, lear11ed counsel for the respondenfcountered by saying
H that jurisdiction oNhe arbitrator cannot be left to the decision of
tbe "arbitrator so ~s to be binding on the parties and it is always for
the court to decide whether the arbitrator has jurisdiction to decid.e
I

.
TARAl>OkE co. l'· COCHIN SHIPYARD (Desai, J.)
. 1~1

the dispute. Alternatively, it was submittec\ .that the arbitrator A
cannot by a misconstruction of the arbitration agreement clothe
,himself with or .confer upon himself the jurisdiction to decide the
dispute. The court it was said has always retains to itself the
jurisdiction to look at the arbitration agreement to determine its
' '
scope and ambit ·and if it. is found that the dispute referred to the,
arbitrator does not fall within the arbitration agreement,. the court
. must interfere on the ground that the award disclosed an error of law
•
• .> apparent on the face of it.

The contention may be examinecJ. both on principle.and on the
precedents. C

Complexity of rights and obligations in national and inter-
national trade and commerce would certainly generate disputes
between tjl.e parties and treated as a normal incident of commercial
life artd till· commercial arbitration came to be· s:cognised as a D
civilised way of resolving such disputes, prolix and time-consuming
litigation was the only method of resolving such disputes. As an
alternative ,to court proceedings, arl;>itration as a method ofresolving
<\isputes by domestic tribunal constituted by the choice of parties
became acceptable. The basic difference between -the court procee-
dings and the arbitration is the choice of the tribunal. Ordinarily, E
all matters in which relief can be claimed from the court may become
subject ·matter of arbitration. Now if in a iaw court incidental
questions of law arise in the course of proceeding, the court has an
obligation to decide those questions of law. But when it came to a
tribunal not endowed, with the judicial power of the State but by 0

conferment by the. parties to the dispute or• which acquir.es jurisd ic- F
tion by a submission of the parties to the dispute to invite the
decision by the forum of their choice and to be bound by it a que.stion
arose whether a pure question of law if at afl can be referred to an
arbitrator for his decision and even· if he_ decides, can the decisiop
be questioned on the ground that there is an error apparent on the
face of the award in deciding the questipn. Now as stated a short·
·c
while ago, a question of law may figure before an arbivator in two
ways. It may arise as an incidental point while deciding the main
dispute referred to the a~bitrator or in a given case parties may refer

..
l
a specific question of law to the arbitrator for his decision. There
is no more gainsaying the fact l!.at a pnre .question of law may and H.
can be referred t'o an arbitrator for his decision. Russel on the Law
of Arbitration Twentieth Edition at page 22 states
.
as under·I
i~s SUPJ(EME COURT REPORTS . (1984) 3 S.C.R.
A "A pure 'question of law ·may be referred to an
arbitrator; and where such a question is specifically referred
his award win not be set asjde merely upon the ground that
his decision is wrong."

In Halsbury's Laws bf· England Vol. 2 Para 623 4th Edition
B. the statemept of law reads as under:

"If 'a specific question of law 'is submitted to the ....(_ ...
arbitrator for his decision and he decide it, the fact that the
decision is erroneous does not make tlie award bad on its face
c so as to . permit its being 'set ·aside; and w.here the question
referred for arbitration is· a question of construction, which is,
gencraUy ,speaking, a _question of law, the arbitrator's decision
cannot be set aside only because the court would itself have
come to a different conclusion."

•
With the ever widenings ·expansion of international trade and·
commerce, complex question of private International Law, effect of
local laws on contracts between parties belonging to different.nations
are certainly bound to crop up. l\rbitration has been considered a
civilised way of resolving such dispute~ avoiding court proceedings'.
There is no reason why the parties should be precluded from referring
a specific question of law to an arbitrator for his decision and agree·
to be bound by the same. This approach manifests faith of parties
in the capacity of the tribunal of their choice to decide even pure a
question of law. If they do so, with eyes wide open, ~nd there is
nothing to preclude the 'parties from doing so, then there is no reason
.
why the court should try to impose its view of law superseding the
'

-viey; of the Tribun;tl whose decision the parties agreed to abide by.
.
Therefore, on principle it appears distinctly clear that when a specific
question oflaw is referred io an arbitrator for his decision including
the one touching upon the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, th~ decision'
o\'the arbitrator would be binding on both the parties and it would
G not be open to any of the two parties to. wriggle out of it by conten·
ding that the arbitrator cannDt clutch at or confer jurisdiction upon.
himself by rllis-construing the arbitration agreement. ·

This conclusion is borne out by a long' line of decisions both,
Indian and foreign to which we would now turn. ...
H
. .
The earliest case to which we would ref~f is the decision of the
-,,1
TARAPO;E co. v. COCHIN SHIPYARD (Desai,};) 1~9
•
House of Lords in KeTanten Government v. Duff Development Co. A
Ltd.' in which Lord Trevethin in his speech said as uuder:

"lf your Lordships should be of opinion that the award
is bad in law upon its face, it should be set aside, for ihis is
not in my view, a submission to arbitration of such a nature

. ,
that, although the law is bad upon the face of the awan;j, the
decision cannot be questioned. That happens only wheri the
·. submission is of a sp1cific question of law and is such that it
B

can be fairly construed to show that' the parties intended to
give up their rights td re~ort to the King's courts and in ·Jieu
thereof to submit that question to the decision of a tribunal
. of their own." c

Same distinction was also· brought out"y Lord Parmoor when
he said that 'the principle applicable where a specific question of
law has been-submitted to the decision of arbitration is well expressed
by Channell, J., in Re King and Duveen, 2 in which it was said that
where a·specific question of 'law is referred to an arbitrator for nis
decision, the award cannot be set asid.e. on the ground of an error
apparent. on the face of the award because the question ?f Jaw was
wrongly decided.' At .a later stage, it was observed that if the· court,
before which it is sougqt to impeach the award, comes to the conclu-
sion that the alleged error in law even if it can be maintained, arises E
in the decision of a question ot .law directly submitted to the,
•arbitrator for his decision, t.hen '.he principle stated by-Channel, J.,
in Re. King and Duv~en apphes, 1s attracted and the parties having •
chosen their tribunal, and not having applied successfully to the
court under;either s. 4 ors. 19 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, are not in
a position to .question the award or to maintain a claim to set it F
aside.' This decision is an authority of the propositidn tha.t where'
. ·a question of construction is the very point referred fo~ arbitration;
then the decis.ion of the arbitrator upon thai point cannot be set
aside by the court only because the court would itself have come·to a
different conclusion. ·

In F,R. Absalom ltd. v. Great Western (London) Garden Village
Society Ltd.' the contention was that the award was bad by reason
of an error in law appearing on the face of it. 'l;he submission was

(!) [1923) All E.R. 349
. (2) [1913) 2 K.B. 32
(3) [1933] AU E.R. 616
140 -
•
. St!PRBMB Coukt REPORtS (1984] 3 s.c.k .
•
not before the court and a reference to the pleadings had to be made.
for the purpose of ascertaining whether any specific question of law
• was in dispute, and Wa3 referred io the arbitrator for his decision.
The pleadings disclosed that the whole dispute between parties was "
as to the am.ount due to the contractor in respect of the value of the
work done and of the materials ·on the site urio and including a
B certain pate. In tlie background of this fact, Lord Warrington in
his speech said that no specific question of construction arose. In
order to. decide whether.the ii.ward was bad It\! reason of an error of
Jaw on the face of it, Lord Russel in his ~peech pointed out at page
621 that it is essential to keep the case where disputes are referred
c Jo an arbitrator 1n the decision of ,which a question of law. becomes
• material distinct from the case in which a ~pecific question oflaw
has been referred to him /or decision.' Thereafter he proceeded to
state: .

"The authorities make a clear distinction between
~these two cases and as they appear to me, . they decide that
in the former case the court can interfere. if and when any
error of law appears on the' face of the award; but that in the
latt~r case no such interference is._ possible upon the· ground
• that it so appears that the decision upon the question of law
is an erroneous one.
E
In reaching this conclusion;' the decision in Ke Ian tan Govern·
ment v. Duff Development Co. Ltd. was affirmed. On the facts, ·ff·
it was found that no specific question of law ~as referred to ·tlie
arbitrator for his decision.

F In /Jurga Prasad Chamria _and Anr. v. Sewkishendas Bhattar
!ind Ors'; the award was sought to be set aside inter alia on the •
ground that t!11l award was bad on account of an error of law.
appar,ent on the face' of it. The errors 'of law relied upon were; (a)
the arbitrator J:iad •admitted as evidence the family settlement and
the partnership arrangement of 1916, neither of which, though each'
G
related (it was said) to immoveable property, had been registered
as required by the Indiaµ Registration Act, and (b) the arbitrator.
• ought to have held that Anardeyi's suit was in any event barred by
· limitation. The Privy Council first noticed the issues settled by
fanckridge. J.; amongstthem were ·the two following:

(I) A.I.R, 1949 (P.C.) 334
TARAPORE co.iv. COCHIN SHIPYARD (Desai, J.) 141

"l(b) Is' the agreement dated 16th November, 1916, A
relating to the alleged family settlement valid or admissible
in evidence? .
(9) Is the plaintiff's ··claim or any portion thereof
barred Jjy limitation?,,
After tnese issues had been settled, the parties agteed to refer
B
to arbitration "the outstanding matters in the suit." In a motion for
• >
setting aside the awardjt was urged that there was an error of law
apparent on the face of the award both with regard as to the
admissibility of the alleged fa~ily settlement and about the suit of
..
Anardeyi being barred by limitation. Rejecting the motion, the Privy
'council observed as under,
•
·"However, tl:iat may be, their Lordships are satisfied
that the two points oflaw as to which it is said the arbitrators
error vitiates the award were specfically referred to him to
decid~ and if this' is so, it would be <:ontrary to well-establis-
hed principles such as are laid down in re King and Duveen D
and F.R. Absa/om Ltd. v. Great West (London) Garden Village
Society Ltd., for a Court of law to interfere with the award
even if tlie Court itself would have taken a different view of
either·ofihe points of iaw had they been before it."
Turning to the decisions of our Court, reference may first be E
made to Seth Thaward1~ Pherumal v. The Union of India'. Jn that
case, the question was_ whether the award was -bad on account of
error of law apparent on the face of it, as provided in Sec. 16(!) (c)
. of the Arbitration Act. Examining this contention, ·this Court
observed as under: ·
"This covers cases in which in errOi of law appears on
r
,the face of the award. But in determinin!!'what such an error
is, a distinction must'be drawn between cases in which a ques-
.
tion of law is specifically referred and those in which a decision·
on a question oflaw is incidentally material (however neces-
.

sary) in order to decide the question actually referred. If a
G'
:1
question of law is'specifcally referred and it is evident that•'
the parties desire to have a decision from the arbitrator about
that rathei'then one from the Courts, then the Courts will not
, interfere, though even there, there is authority for the view
· that the courts will interfere if it is apparent that the arbitrator
ff.
(I) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 48
'
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 3 S.C.R.

A has. acted illegally in reaching his decision, th~t is to say, if
he has decided on foadmissible evidence or on principles of
· construction that the law does 1,1ot contenance o,r· something
of that nature. See the speech of Viscount Cave in Ke/antan
Government v. Duff Development Co. at page 409. But that
is not a matter which arises in this case.
B
The law about this is, in our opinion the same in
·England as here and the pril)ciples that govern this class of
case have been reviewe.d at length and set out with clarity by
. the House of Lords in F.R. Absalom Ltd. v. Great Western
(London) Garden Village Society and in Ke/antan Govern-
·C ment v'. Duff De~efopment Co. In Duiga Prasad v. Sewkiii.·
hendas · the Privy Council applied the, law expounded in ·
Absa/om's case tci India; see also Chainpsey Bhara & Co. v.
Jivraj Ba/loo Spinning and.Weaving Co. and Saleh Mahomed
Umer Dossa/ v. Nathooma/ Kessamal. The wider language
· used· by Lord Macnaghten in Ghu/am Jiliini v. M uh~mmad
.Hassan<b.aci reference to the revisionail ·powers of the. High
Court under the Civil Procedure Code and must be. confined
to the facts of that case where the question of !aw· involved
there, namely, limitation, was spec!ficaUy referred. An
arbitrator is not a conciliator and cannot ignore the law or
E mi;apply it in.order to do what he thinks is just and reasonable.
He is a tribunal sel~cted by the parties to decide their disputes
according to law and so is b01md to follow, and apply the Jaw,
· and ifhe does not he can be set right by the Courts provided
his er•or appears on.the fact of' the .•award. The single ex-
ception to this is when the. parties choose specifically to refer
F a question of law l\S a seperate and distinct matter."
• p - .
The Court fl)rther proceeded to examine whether in the facts .
'Of that . case, the arbitrator was speci'fically asked to construe
clause ·6 of the contr>ll:t or any part of the"contract or whether any
question of law was specifically referred. The Court emphasised .
G the word 'specifically' by pointing out tha_t, parties who made
a reference to arbitration have the right fo insist that the Tribunal
of their choice shall decide their dispute according to Jaw, so
before the 'right.,i:an be denied to them in any particufar matt_er, the ·
court must be very sure that both sides wanted the decision of the
arbitrator on a point of Jaw rather than that of the Courts 'and that
· they wanted his decision on that point to be final. . The Conrt then
proceeded to examine the various clauses of the contract and held
tllat tl1is is not the kind of specific reference on a point of law that
TARAPORE.CO. v. COClflN SlflPYARD (Desai, J.) • 143
_ the law of ar~itration requires. The C_ourt held that when a. ques- A-
tion of law is the point at issue, unless both sides specifically agree
. to refer it and agree "to be bound by the arbitrator's decision, the
jurisdiction of the Courts to set an arbitration right when the error
is apparent on the face of the award is not _ousted. The mere faCt
• , that both parties submit incidental arguments about a point of law -
· in the course of the proceedings is no~ enough. This decision is an
.
t
;
'
authority for the proposition that where the parties specifically agree .
to refer a specific question of law for the decision of the arbitratot,
and agree to be bound by it, the _Cciurt cannot set aside the award on
the ground of an error oflaw apparent on the face of it even though
the decision of the arbitrator may not acsord with the law as under-
stood by the C"ourt. If on the other hand, the question of law is c
incidentally decided by the arbitrator, it is not enough to oust the
jurisdiction of the Court to set aside the award on the ground that
there is an error apparent on the face of the award. ·

In M/s Alopi Par shad & Sons .Ltd. v. The Union 'of India'
the Court reiterated the observation in Seth Thawardas's case and 'D
observed that if a specific question is submitted to the arbitrato~-
and he answers it, the. fact that the answer involves an erron~ous
decision in point of law, does-not make the award bad on its_ face
so as io permit of its being set aside. _In the facts of the case, this
Court agreeing with the High Court held that ther'e is no founda-
tion-for the view that a specific reference, submitting a question of
law for the adjudication of the arbitrators, was made. It may be
st3cted in passing that a brief reference to the claim put forward
before the arbitator on behalf of.the appellants in th.at case, set out
. at page 798 of the report, would clearly, show that no specific
question -of law was referred by the parties for .the decision of the
arbitrator. Mr. Pai learned counsel for the respondent pointed out
that the Court has also observed following the deCision, of the Privy
-~
, Council in Chatnpsey Bhara and Company v. Jiv.aj Bal/60 Spinning
and Weaving Company Ltd'., that 'the- extent of the jurisdiction of
the court to set aside an award on the grouµd of an error in making
the award is well-defined. The award of an arbitrator may be set, G
. aside on the ground of an etror on the face thereof only when in
the award 011in any document incorporated with it, as for instance,
a note appended by the . arbitrators, stating the reasons for_ his
decision, there is found some legal proposition which is the basis of
the award and which is erroneous. This observation does not help

(I) J[1960]'2 S.C.R. 793 __
(2) Law Report$Q l-A· 324
1-

..
• 144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19&4) 3 S.C.R •
•
A in deciding the point under discussion and just after this statement,
there follows the obsevation about the effect of referring a specffic-
question of Jaw for the decision of the airbitrator and the jurisdic-
tion-of the Co~rt to set aside 'the award on the grol!nd 'that !herds

B
.. an error of law apparent on the face of it.
'
.In Union of India- v: A.L. Ra//ia Ram1 this Court after referring
to the decision in Champs.y '/Jhara and Coinpany reaffirmed that,
the rule in that decision does not apply where questions of law
are-specifically referred to the arbitrator for hii decision; the award
of the arbitrator on those questions is binding upon the parties, for
by referring specific questions tlw parties desire to -have a decision
-c from the arbitrator on tho§e questipns raiher than frqm the Court and
the Court will not, unless it is satisfied that the arbitr.ator had procee-
ded illegally interfere with the decision. After referring .to the decl-
. sion hereinabove examined by' us, the Court came to the conclusion
that no specific question of Jaw wer.e referred to the arbitrator's ·-,,,_
the decision whereof is binding upon the parties. .
0
In M/s Kapoor Nilokheri ·Co-op. Dairy Farm Society Ltd. v. •
• Union of India and Others• the Court agreed with the submission
.on behalf of the respondent Government of India that the appellants
having specifically stated that their clai~s are b~sed on the agree-
ment and on '.nothing else and all that the arbitrator bad to decide
E . was as to the effect of the agreement, the arbitrator bad really to
decide a question . of law, i.e. of interpreting the document, the
agreement dated May 6, 1953 and therefore the decision is not
open to Challenge. In fact, this decision is hardly of any assistance
and we leave it' at that.
F In N' Chellappan v. Secretary, Kera/a State Electricity Board
& Anr•. by a consent order, the umpire was _appointed as the sole •
arbitrator, and the respondent-Board without a demur participated
in the proceedings before the umpire and took the chance of an
award in its favour, this Court said ~hat it cannot turn round and say
G that the umpire. bad no inherent jurisdicti6n and therefore its parti-
cipation in the proceedings before the, um.pi re is of no avail. This deci-
sion is not of much assistance on the point!undet discussion. Mr. Pai
on the other band urged that the jl/risdiction of the afbitator could
not be determined by him nor can he arrogate jurisdiction to himself

(I) (1964] 3 S.C.R. 164
(2) A.LR. 1973 S.C. 1338
(3) (1975) 2 S.C,R:1*!1
•I
-
~ • TARAPORB co. v. COCHIN sHiPYARD (Desai, J.)
,
by mis-construction of the contract and thereby clutch at jurisdiction
and in such a situation, the court always retains to itself to set at
naught.the award on the ground of an error of law apparent on the
145,

face of the award. 111 terms, he stated that the issue about the
jurisdiction of the arbitrator has never been parted with by . the
Court-Generally speakings, common law courts were very reluctant
B
. to part with its jurisdiction to' set at naught an award on the ground
·that-the_ arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain ·and. decide the
dispute. The Court went so far as to say that the arbitrator cannot
confer jurisdiction upon himseif by deciding in ·its own favour some
preliminary points upon which its jurisdiction rests. In fact, that is
a non-issuse. It cannot be dispute.d that even the question of jurisdic- Cl
tion of an arbitrator can be the aubject matter of a specific reference.
If.the parties agree to refer the specific question w)lether th~ dispute
raiseq is covered by the arbitration agreement, it becomes a
specific question of law even if it involves the jurisdjction of the
arbitraor _and if it is so, a. decision of.the arbitrato_r on specific ques-
tion referred to him for decision even if it appears to be erroneous D
. to the Court is binding on the.parties.· The decisions relied upon by
Mr. Pai do not derogate from this legal position... We may briefly
r~fer to those decision

In Produce Brokers Co. Ltd~ v. Olympia Oil aniJCake Co. Ltd.,1
it was held that "if the question which the arbitrator takes upon E
himself to decide is not in fact within the' submission the awa_rd is a
. >,. nullity. The arl/itr~tor ~annot make his award binding by. holding
contrary to the true fac.ts when the question which he !lffects ·to
i
determine is within the submiision." Let us emphasise the ratio of
the decision that the arbitrator takes upon himself to decide a
question not within the submission. · This would mean that the F

.. question of law was not specifically referred to thy arbitrator for his
decision but it was incidentally raised. In fact, nowhere .it was
contended that ariY specific question of law was referred to the
arbitrator and if so what would be its effect on the binding character
of the d.ecision was. ever raised in that case. In that cllse after an·
answer was returned to the Special Case submitted for the opinion E
of the court, the Committee of Appeal unreservedly accepted the
said answers upon the construction of the contract as a matter of
law·apart from the custom of.the trade, but proceeded further to
hold that there was a long established and well-recognised custom of
the trade .in cases of re-sales that buyers under the forrn of contract
H

(I) [1914-!Sl AU ~·R· 133
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R, ~··
•
in question impliedly' agreed with their sellers tlrat they would accept
the original Shipper's appropriation if passed on without delay. On
a motion by the buyers to have the award. set aside, of which notice
. .
was glven, the Divisional Court held that the arbitrators had no
jurisdiction to find conclusively the existence of a trade custom, and
the Court of Appeal on the authority of prr.cedents bui against their ·
B own opinion, affirmed the decision. The appellant-seller's company
. 4'.,
appealed to the House of Lords. ,Lotd Loreburn in his speech -
observed that 'these men of business made contracts and therein
agreed to arbitrate· upbn all disputes arising ·out of 'their contracts.
' '
. ' i
Yet there Iiave already been seven distinct stages of argument and·
decision, four of them in courts of law, upon a dispute arising on
c those contracts, and the end is not .yet. I do not know how many
more stages there will be. Pa1ties have a right to prefer .what some
may consider the imperfect though expeditious wisdom of arbitrators
to the slower and more .costly justice of His Majesty's courts. ·It is
to be regretted when they have to encounter the inconveniences of
D both methods· with the advantage 01. neither." Approaching the
matter from this angle, the appealwa:s allowed and the decision of.
the 9ommittee of Appeal, taking note of the custom of th~ trade,
allowed the award to stand. This decision can in no way help the
respondent.

In Attorney Oeneral For Manitoba v. Kelly and Others1 it was
observed that "Whenever therels. a difference of opinion between
' the parties as to the. authorify cqnferred oh an ·umpire or arbitrator
under an agreed submission the decision rests ultimately with the
court and not with the umpire or arbitrator." · This is predicated
upon a proposition that common ll!w courts were reluctant to part
with their jurisdiction to set,at·naught an award if th~ arbitrator
'
confers jurisdiction upon himself by deciding in his own favour some
preliminary point 'Upon which his jurisdiction rests.
Mr. Pai also referred to the decisions of.the Privy Council in
Champsey Bhara & Co, and Hirji Mu/ji v. Cheong Yue Steamship Co.
G Ltd.• Both these decisions. are of no assistance on the question
about the reference of a specific question of law touching upon the
jurisdiction of the arbitrator f~r his deeision and its effect. Jn fact.
the decision in Champsey Bhara' s case clearly turns upon as to what
constitutes an error of Jaw apparent on the face of the award .
•
H
(1) [1922] All. E.R. 69
(2) [1926] All. E·R· SJ
TARAPORE co. y. COCHIN SHIPYARD (Desai, J.) 141
The next case referred to was Heyman & Anrs. v. Darwins Ltd. 1 A
It reasserts that as a rule the arbitrator cannot clothe himself with
jurisdiction. ~-

Turning to the decisions of this Court, .reference was first made
to Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth & Ors. v. Chintamanrao Balaji & Anr.•
•' Shah, J. speaking for himself and Jilstice Sarkar at page 499 observed 'a
. that 'this is not a case in which the arbitrator Jias committed a mere
error of fact or law in -reaching his conclusio11 on the disputed
• >• ·question >Submitted for his adjudication. It is a case of assumption
of jurisdiction not poss_essed by him, and that renders the award 1 tci
the extent to which it is beyond the arbitrator's jurisdiction, invalid".
It may be pointed out that these observations are in the context of
tlie facts of that case and there was no contention before the cou.rt
that any specific qu,estion of law touching upon the jurisdiction of
the arbitrator was referred to-for his:decision by the parties.
The last decision in this context referred to was Dr. S:B. Dutt
v. University q{ Delhi. 8 In that case the .arbitrator gave by his D
award a direction to enforce the contract ·of personal service. · This
_ wautated as an error of law apparent on the face of the award and·
the award was set aside. Again it may be pointed out that tpe
reference to the the point set out in the .letter of reference extracted
at page 1240 clearly spells out that no specific question oflaw
touching upon the jurisdiction of the arbitrator was referred to the E
arbitrator for his decision.

' On a conspectus of these decisions, it clearly transpires that if
a question of law is specificially referred .and it becomes evident that
,,
the parties desired to have a decision on the specific question from _
th_e arbitrator about 'that rath~r than one from court, then the court -F
will noi interfere with the award of the arbitrator on the ground that
th'ere is an error of law apparent on the face of the award even if
the view of ·taw taken by the. arbitrator does not.accord with the
--~
view of the court. This view of law taken in England was stated by
this Court to be the same in this country and since the decision in
Seth Thawardas's· case which follows earlier decisions in England c
·and India, it has not been departed from. Th_e view canvassed for
by Mr. Pai that common law courts were very reluctant to part with
its jurisdiction has hardly any relevance where a specific qu,estion of

(I) [1942! (I) All E.R. 337. H
(Q) [1964] S SCR 480.
(3) (195?1 SCR 1236'
• 148 . SUPREME COURT REP ORTS [1984) 3 s.C.R.

. law including the one touching the jurisdiction of the arbitrator ·is
referred to the arbitrator for his decision. Even if the decision of
· the arbitrator doi'l not ac.cord with the view of the court, the award
. cannot be set aside on the sole ground that there is an error of law
apparent on the face of it.
B Before we· conclude on this 'pojnt we must take note 6f a
contention of Mr. Pa.i that the respondent cannot be 'estopped from
·contending that the arbitrator had ·no jurisdiction lo entertain the
dispute as the respond~nt agreed to the submission without prejudice
to its rights to contend t,o _the contrary.. It is undoubtedly true that
'in the letter dated March 29,1976.by which the respondent agreed
c to refer the dispute to the arbitrator. it was in ternis stated that the
reference is ·being made without prejudice to the positi.on of the
resppndent as adopted in the l~tter meaning thereby without prejudice
to its rights to contend that the claim of the appellant is not covered
by the arbitration clause. In the context in which the expression
D 'without prejudice' is us.ed, it would only mean that the respondent
reserved the right to contend before the arbitratpr that the dispute
is not covered by the arbitration clause. It does not· appear that
what was reserved ~as a contention that, no specific question of law
was specifically referred· to the arbitrator. It is difficult to spell out
,such a contention from the letter. ·And the respondent did raise the
E contention before the arbitrator .that he had no jurisdiction to
entertain the dispute as it would not be covered ·by the arbitration·
clause. Apatt from the technical meaning which the expression
'without prejudice' carries depending upon the context in which it is
used, in the. present case on a l?roper reading of the _correspondence
.and-in· the setting in which the term is used, it only means that the
F
re.spondent reserved~to itself the right to contend before the arQ,jtartor
that a dispute raised or the claim made by the 'contractor was not .
covered by the arbitration ·clause. No other meaning can· be as'signed
to it. An action taken wi~hout prejudice to one's right cannot
• necess.arily mean that the entire action can be ignored by the party
·taking the same. In this case, the respondent referred the specific
. question of )aw to the qrbitrator. This WflS ·according to .the
respondent without ptejudice to its right to. contend that the c.Jaim
or the dispute. is not covered by the arbitration clause. The
contention was to be before the arbitrator. If the respondent warited
to ~sscrt that it had reserved t9 itself the right 'to con!e.nd that no
H specific question of law was referred to the arbitrator, in .the first
instance, it should not have made the reference in the terms in which
it is made but should have agreed to the proposal of tile appellant
tARAPORE co. v. COCHIN SHIPYARD (Desai, J,) 149

to make a general reference. If the ·appellant insisted on the A
reference of a sp~cifi:c .question which error High Court appears to
have committed, it could have declined to make .the reference <Of a
specilkquestion of iaw touching his jurisdiction and should have
taken recourse to the. court by making an appi'ication under Sec.
• 33 of the Arbitration· Act to have the. effect of the arbitration agree-
B
ment determined by the court. Not only the re'spondent did not
I have recourse to an application under Sec .. 33 of the Arbitration Act,
• >
but ofits own it referred a specific question of Jaw to the arbitrator
for his decision, participated. in the arbitration proceeding in~i(ed,
·the arbitrator to decide the spedfic question and fook a chance of a
decision. It cannot therefore, now be permitted to turn round. and
c
contend to the contrary on the nebulous plea that it had referred
·the, claim/dispute to the sole arbitrator without prejudice to its right .
to contend to the contrary. Therefore, there is no merit in the
of
contention Mr. Pai. •

, In this case, as earlie~ pointed out a _specific question as to D
whether the claim of compe!lsation made by the appellant-contractor
· and demurred arid disputed by the respondent wQuld be covered
within the scope, ambit and width of the arbitratioi. clause, wa~
specifically referred by the parties for the decision of\the arbitrator.
Therefore, it is a case where a specific question 'of law touching upon
,Jhe jurisdiction of the arbitrator was referred for the decision of the E
arbitartor by the parties.' Even if the view taken by the arbitrator
may qot accord with the view of the.court about the scope, ambit
and· wi<!!h of the arbitration clause, the award cannot be set aside •
on the ground that there is an efror of law apparent on the face of
the award. The view taken by the High Court is palpably untenable
a.nd has to be reversed. On this short paint, the appeal can be F
all6wed ... However, it was strenuously urged by both the sides that
the dispute arising out of the claim for compensation made by. the
appellant on account of the increase in the cost of the piie driving
equipment and technical know-how fees would or would not, be
covered by the first Pilragraph of Clause 40, we would briefly examine
the same to point out that it would be covered. G

In order to ascertain whether 'the claim for compensation for
incr_ease iu the price of pile driving· equipment and technical know-
h9w fees would be covered by the arbitration clause, it is necessary
· briefly to refer .to the negotiations and discussions leading to the
H
formation of the contract for construction of the Repair Dock and
the Building Dock. The value of the works to be executed was
150 SUPREME'couRT REPo~'rs [1984j ~ s.C.R.
. A over Rs 24 crores. In respect of the construction of Repair Oock,
there was only the tender of .the appellant land. in respect of the
Building Dock,. there were two tenders:· one of the appellant and
another by M/s National mji!ding Construction Corporation, the
tendered valueo of the latter being· double . that of. the former.
Indisputably, tqe respondent had a very limited or realistically no
.. '
.• B choice. In such a situation the Tender Committee took notice of
the fact of the. pol:lr response to the invitation to tender. The
Committee took notice of such salient features of the work being the
~' .
complexity and magnitude· of the works to be undei'taken by any
· Indian Contra9tor and the non-availability of plant and equipment
C required for the works and, more especially that if the contractor· ·
was to procure the specialised ·equipment required for the works,
• there was hardly any assurance that after the works were over, the
machinery would be so much depreciated to have a11y substantial
· •use or utility to the contractor. Iri the 'invitation to te.nder, it was
indicated that requisite foreign exchange for importing pile driving
equipment and machinery, spares and technical know-how amounting
to about Rs 2 crores in all would be made available to the contractor
from the 11th Yen Credit from Japan, subject to his getting indi:
genous cloorance and providing·d.etailed justdication. Annexure IV
to the General Conditions of Contract clearly. specifies that the
tendereis while quoting shall give separately the full details' of the
E ·equipment for which they would be requiting foreign exchange
· assistance. And they shall also i~dicate the financial implication if
any, . for providing not providing the foreign exchange assistance
indicated for th~ various equipments. Two things emerge from
recital of the facts' herein enumerate<;l i'n the course of formation of.
tbe contract: (1) that the pile driving equipment will have to be
F ·imported from outside India and technical know-how fees will. have
to be paid both in foreign currency and (2) this would necessitate
investment of about Rs 2 crores by the contractor. The_ contractor
in his letter dated July 14,1972 specifically invited the rospondent to
confirm the modifications in the terms of contract as set out therein.
G Jn paragraph 31 (E) (!),the contractor states that all foreign exchange-
for the equipment, spares, technical know-how and hiring of experts
shall be provided to the contractor and that the total foreign
· exchange on all these accounts will be about Rs 2 crores. A sort of
an assurance was thus extended to the contractor thatthe same
wquld .be made available to him from the 11th Yen credit from
H Japan. This is.not disputed. It is also an admitted position that
,the neeessary equipment, machinery, spares and technical know-how
were not available from Japan and the availability of the I Ith
l •

!AkAl>oRilcp. ~. cocit1N sarPYARD (Desai, J.) 151

Yen credit from Japan lost all significance. Further the respondent A
by its letter dated January 24, 1973 to the appellant while accepting
the tender of the appellant.on behalf of Cochin Shipyard Limited
specifically stated as under:

''You shall provide at your cost all construction' plant
and machinery (including that requiring import) for all items B
of work including RCC piling and Steel Sheel Piling Works.
1
Departmental machinery likely to be made. available for issue
to the Contractor shall be as -in Annexure IV of the General
Conditions of Tender.

You shall furnish an inventory. of all plant and c
machinery propos.ed to be used. on the works including items
of imported machinery with probable date of their availability
at site for use or! the work. This should match with the
Detailed Working Programme indicated as above."

At this stage· a reference to the.addition~! Terms and Condi- Q
tions/Modifications to the General Conditions and Specifications of
t~~ Departmental Tender Documents, \(ould be advantageous. It
_reads as under: • ·

"All Piling Equipment shall . be procured by the
Contractor ........................ .... 1• ........... ; ......................... . E
............. Selection of equipment will be done by the Contractor
i11 consultation . with the Cochin Shipyard authorities. No
hire charges for the equipment procured by the. Contractor is
payble to the Shipyard .................................................. ..
................ Requisite foreign exchange, for importing piling
plant and machinery, spares, technicai know'-how and hiring F
of experts necessary for both the Dock Works,videWork
Order ........ for Repair Dock etc., amounting to about Rs 2.00
crores in.all will be m1de available to ·the Contractor from
the ! Ith Yen credit subject to his getting indige~ous clearance
and proyiding detailed.justification" .
G
It is thus unquestionably established that the appellant whose
tender was accepted after negotiations and scrutiny by the Tender
Commitee was expected to invest Rs 2 crores in importmg pile
driving equipme)Jt and technical know-how fees. The tender was
accepted and a formal contract was entered into on his basis. 1n" ff·
works contract of such magnitude, the value whereof was over Rs. 24
· crores, and which was being undertaken by an Indian contractor for
•

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1~84] 3 s.c.R.. · ~j
A the first time negotiations prior to the finalisation of the contract
and tlie correspondence leading to the formation of contract supply
the basis on which contract was finally entered into. Undoubtedly,
. if in th'e final written contract, there . is something contr~ry to the
basic understanding during the formative stage of the contract, the
written ~oiltract would. prevail. But if the contract does· not indicate
1
B to the contray and the assumptions appeared to be the foundation·
' .
of the contract obviously that aspect cannot be overlooked while
determining what were the obligation undertken under th, formal
contract. It may be recalled that the two alternative rates were .
·quoted.by the_ contractor: (i) the respondent were to Import the. pile··
driving equipment and technical _know-how for its optration, the
c same would be leased to the contractor at negotiated fates or (ii)
the contractor were to impor.t the same the rates be paid to the con-
tractor. The second alternative was accepted· by the parties on the
f1mdamental assumption that the investment in this behalf. would be
Rs 2 crores. This is the agreed position on which contract was
D . entered into. To continue the narrative, it may be pointed out that
this fundamental foundation of the contract not left to guess work,
but is specifically referred to in the.notice inviting tender and in Ille
· specification$ and modifcations as addenda to the General Comli-
tions of Contract. It was clearly understood between .the parties
that the contractor has to· invest roughly Rs. 2 · crares in foreign, ·'
E· exchange for i~porting pile driving equipment and technical know-
how fees without which this work could never have been .undertaken
and without which it wonld not have been entrusted . to the
contractor. The contractor when be quote his terms must obvimrsly ·.
have made appropriate calculations, one of which in this case
appears to. be that it will have to invest Rs. 2 crores in foreign
F exchange and this fact flies in the face that aftrer the work w~s over
the imlJor"ted machinery would depreciate to this extenfthat it would
h.ave h~rdly any use of utility to the contractor ~s noticed by the
Tender· Committee. The rates quoted by the contractor were
obviously interrelated to the basic assumption. The fact that such
was also also the understanding of the respondent may now be
G
pointed out.
The respondent by its letter dated July 31, 1973 to Industrial
Adviser (HME), Directorate General of Technical Development
requested him .to issue· necessary clearance to the appellant fot
· import of the equipment set out in the Annexure to the letter on the
H
ground that the appellant tried its level best to get the equipment
from the Japaneses sources, butthey could not get positive resitive .
' . '
TARAPORE co. v. cocillN SHIPYARD (Desai, J.) 153
response for such equipments. They had also tried their best to get A
.s~itable offers from U. K., U. S. A., USSR, Canada, West Ger-
many and Holland. It l"as also pointed aut that the respondent itself
also made independent enqujries in· Japan for getting suitable offers
for tl1e above equipment without success. Thus it . becomes clear'
that to the knowledge of the respondent, the 11th Yen Credit
• · became irrelevapt. The Government of India by its letter dated B
j September 1,1973 to the respondent conv(>yed its approval to the
release of;the foreign exchange in favour of the appellant to the
extent of Rs 2 ILSO lakhs (Rupees two crores eleven lakhs and eighty
thousand only) equivalent to DFL 9, 442, 7.00 at the specified exc-
hange rate. Therafer the appellant by its letter. dated May 28,1975
amongst others requested tjie responde.nt to take note of the fact that
the tendered tales were based ou certain total cost of machfoes which
.
Iias since gone up considerably "
rendering the rates' no longer ·
workable; The contractor proceeded to point out the utter irre-
levancy of the rates in view of the higher outlay of imported.
machinery and technical know-how. It pointed out the loss sustained D.
by the contractor and requested fqr compensatfon in this behalf.
This was followed by the letter dated Jnly I, 1975 by the contractor
io the respondeht, emphasising the- fact that ihe tendered rates had
become - unwofkable and unrealistic owing to the incre~se in the cost
of equipment. know-how etc. as a result of the increase in the foreign·
exchange rate of Dutch Guilders as related to the Rupee. In response
to the last letter the respondent replied by. its, letter dated July 2,
1975, relevant portion of which may be extracted:

"In this connection, a kind reference is invited to your ·
letter dated the 14lh July, 1972 (which forms a part of the
contract documents) wherein you had indicated that the rota/ F
foreign exchang~. required by you for the equipment; spares, •
J
'technical know-how and hiring of experts, was expected to be
"'\ about Rs 2 crores. From the d.ata enclosed with your . letter
under reply, it is seen that the foreign exchange.expenditure
incurred by you SO· far in connection With this Contract had
G
been less than Rs 2 crores. In the circumstances; it is difficult
to accent the position that your tender was based on assum-
ptions indicated by you and that the rates for pile driving
should now be revised.:'

This letter furnishes proof, if one was needed that parties were
H
ad idem that the investment for imported pile driving equipment
and foreign exchange know-how would be about Rs 2 crores. The
SUPR~ME COURT REPORTS [19&4i 3 s.c.k. •

A respondent does not .contest the claim for ~ompensation under this
head as is npw sought to. be done on the ground that as the contrac-
tor had to provide imported pile drivjng equipment and technical

. know-how, the respondent is not entitled to compensation even _if
the initial estimate has been found to - be unrealistic .. On the
contrary the claim for compensation 1s disputed and controverted on
B. the'gr0und that the foreign exchange expenditure ·incµrred by the'·
contractor so far in connection with imported pile driving equipment
·and technical know-how has been less than Rs 2 crores. From this
correspondence, it. wolud emerge that both the parties were agreed
that the.contractor wonld have to invest Rs 2· crores in foreign ex-
change for importing pile driving equipment and· technical know-how
c wh.ich could only be used after approval of the same by. the respon-
dent. The appellant by its letter August 9; 1975 contended. that
escalation of expenditure under this head is taken care of in the
contract .and more speCifically in clauses 13 and ~ 6 o( the works
order: W'e would have occasion t~ refer to these clauses. a little latet.
The respondent by its letter dated· August 29, 1975 reasserted its
D position· that the foreign exchange element of the expenditure
incurred by the contractor works-out to Rs 1.96 crores, ·which is
foss than the figure of Rs. 2 crore.s that was expected to be invested
in foreign ·exc4ange-which was to be provided by the contracto.r, .
The respondent.also referred to th~ assessm~nt of e.<penditure made
· by the contractor as per its letter dated July 14,1972. This has
already been referred to by us. The respondeni further asserted that
the estimate so ma'!te till that date has not been exceeded and tJ1eie-
fore, any argument based on fluctuation in the exchaqge rate is not
valid or tenable. It may be repeated that the refusal to entertain the
claim for compensation was ·predicated upon. the. estimates having
not exceeded the basic. minimum of Rs. 2 crores by the contractor on
I' which rates were worked out and agreed, and not· that such claim
cannot be entertained under the contract. By its Jetter dated Sep-
tember 18;1975, the contractor reiterated it~· position; In its letter
dated October 6, 1975, the respondent when it was faced with the
situation that the expenditure incurred under this head in foreign ex- ·
G
change had risen to Rs 214.33 lacs i. e. it had exceeded the expected
investment of Rs. 2 crores·under this head, took !I summerasult ;rnd ·
stated that the·respondent had at no stage stated that the contractor
was 'not entitled to'any claim because the amount of foreign exchange
has not yet exceeded Rs 200 Iak!).s'. One has merely to call attention
to the two letters dated July '2, 1975 and August 29 1975 to reach
B the conclusion that tJie respondent has gone back upon its original
vositio11 and having found that the expenditure under this head has
•

'rARAPORB co. Y. COCHIN SHIPYARD (Desai, J.) BS
•
tgone up beyond the estimated expenditure made a volte face, the two A.
positions. so adopted being entirely inconsistent with' each other
Tl;tereafter, the matter was referred to arbitration. .

From the commencement i.e. from tl\e stage of inviting tenders
and through the negotiations and the finalisation of the contract, at
every stage, the respondent assured that foreign exchange would be B
made available from 11th Yen Credir. As the equipm3nt was not
available from Jap11'n, the availabilty of Yen Credit becqme otios"
.from the contractor's point of view. At the instanc,e of and with the
active participation of the respondent, the contractor made enquiries
· in various countries and ultimately procured the necessary equipment
c
and technical know--how which was approved by the respondent and
imported the same. In the time lag, the price as well as the foreign
exchange rates in relation to rupee underwent an upward change,
with the result. that the contractor had to invest, as made out by it
and not seriously controverted before the arbitrator in all· Rs. 275.40
lakhs for imported pile driving equipment and spares and Rs. 18,64, D
337.61 on technical services-cum-know-how fees and a further
sum for higher custom duty. Details of the claim have been set out
in Annexures 1 and 2 reSf>ectivel~ to the statement of claim submitted
by 'the appellant to the arbitrator. The respondent in its counter-
statement did not controvert the details of the claim and the expen-
diturejnvolved under the two heads-_ The whole of the counter· B
claim' was concerned with the denial of its liability io compensate
the contractvr coupled with the contention that the claim would not
be covered by the arbitration agreement and therefore,· ihe arblt~ator ,
had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the claim. ·· It may
also be mentioned that at,no time since the award, the res;))n1~n t·
F
ever disputed or questioned the amount awarded "by the arbitrator.·
It is thus satisfactorily established that the contractor had to invest
- j
something far in excess of Rs. 2 crores ·which it was expected to
-1. invest. ih foreig~ exchange for imported pile drivijig equipment and
techmcal know-ho_w fe~s. The whole contract was concluded on
this understanding. Being aware of the fluctuating position in this G
b_ehalf, the contractor l:ad tendered two alternative rates for comple·
hon of the, work as pomted earli~r ; one based on equipment being
im~orted by the respondent and leased to the appellalJt and alter-
na~1~ely rat~s on the basis that the contractor would import pile
dnvmg equrp,ment and technical know-how. In respect of the second
alternative, which was ultillllitely agreed to between the parties ·1 H
was clearly and ·unmistakably understood between. the partiest h~l ..
• •
SuPREME COURT REPORTS · [! 984] 3 s.c.k
·A the contractor would have to invest Rs. 2 crores and the rates were
co-related to this investment with the knowledge of the fact that
when work was completed, the equipment would' depreciate to the
tnne of 75% of its capability and WQnld be hardly of an¥ use to the
contractor. · The estimated expenditure having far exceeded, a claim
for compensation would certainly be tefiable .at the instance of the
.
contractor. .

The High Court quoted •
clauses 16, 26 hnd 31 in its judament
0
but did nof dilate upon the provisions of the clauses so a:; to co-
~

. . 1.

'

relate them with Its decisiatl. Clause 16 envisaged a situation where ..
since the formation of the 'contract any fresh law is enacted which
:.Cl. has the bearing on the price of materials incorporated in the works
and/or wages oflabour, the terms of contract shall accordingly be
varied. Clause 26 provided for supply of materials, plants, tools, ·
appliances etc. by the contractor. Clause 2 provides for the liability
of the contractor to supply construction, plant 'and machinery
.. including the items .to be imported and a further obligation. is cast
D
on the contractor to Juruish inventory of the same. Clause 3·1
amongst others, provided that the pile driving equipment shall be
p·rocured by the contractor, and the selection of equipment shall be
done by the contractor, in consultation with the responden·t. These
clauses were presumably referred to in the context of. an arguwent
•,
that the pnce escalationdause does not cover the claim for compen-
.E
sation for ~dditional expenditure on imported plant and machinery . '
x
and technic)ll know-how because the contract substantially provides
for the s.ame- to bl supplied by the contractor.' In our opinion, this
over-simplification of the clauses of the contract involving works pf
such magnitude is impermissible. The whole gamut of discussions,
negotiations and'correspondence must be taken into consideration
to arrive at a true meaning of what was ·agreed to between the
parties. And in this case there is no room for doubt that the parties
agreed, that the investment of the. contractor under this head would
be Rs,. 2 crores and the tendered rate& were predicated upon and
co-related_ to t)lis undt!standing. When an . ag,eement is predicated
upon ati agreed fact situation, if the latter ceases to exist the agree-
ment to that extent becomes irrelevant or otiose. The rat.es j'lay-
able to J,he contractor were r.elated to ·the investment of Rs 2 crores
under this head by the contractor. Once the rates bec!lme irrelevant
on account of circumstances· beyond the control of the contractor,
it was open to, the. contractor to make a claim for compensation.
Therefore, it appears satisfactorily est4blished that-the claim arose .
· while iWplementing t.he contract and in_ relation to the contract.
TAR.I.PORE co. v. cocl!iN sHiPYARD (Desai, J.) 157
•The next question is whetherlhis claim made by the contractor A
and disputed by the respondent wpuld be ccivered by the arbitratfon
clause. The arbitration clause has already been extracted. Even the
High Court admits th<1t clause 40 is very widely worded. It inter
alia provides that.all questions and disputes relating to the meaning
· of the Specifications Estimates, InstructiOns, Designs. Drawings
bereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of the Workmanship B

t
or matelials. used on the work or as to the any other questions claim,
right, matter or thing whatsoever .in any. way arising out of or relat-
ing to the contract---:--..._-:-_ or otherwise concerning the
. works or the execution---'---whether arising during the
progress of the work or after completion----'--;---shall be -c
·referred to the Sole Arbitrator etc." The scope; width and the ambit
of the Arbitration clause is of widest amplitude and any claim arising
out of or relating to the contract or otherwise concerning the works
or the execution thereof would be covered by the· arbitration clause.
The material portion of clause 40 which would assist us in deciding
the questions is .'claim' right matter or thing whatsoever in any way D
arising out of or relating to the contract~---------·--
. estimates or otherwise concerning the works or-the execution. etc."
Briefly stated any claim arising out of or relating to the contract,
estimates or otherwise concerning the works or the execution thereof
would be covered by the arbitration clause. The question to be, posed
is ."does the claim made by the contractor arise outof or relates to
the contract, estimates, or is otherwise <:oncerning works for execution
thereof? Phrases such as 'claim ·arising out of contract' or "relating
to the contract' ,or 'concerning t~e contract' on proper constrnction
•
would mean that if while entertaining or rejecting the claim or the
dispute in relation to C:1;tim may be entertained or rejected after
F
. ,, reference to the contract, it is a claim arising out of contract. Again
the· language of cl. 40. shows that any claim arising out of the
contract in relation to estimate made in the contract would be cover-
ed by the arbitration clause. If it becomes necessary to have recourse
to the ·contract .to settle the dispute one way or the bther than
certainly it can be -said that it is a dispute arising out of the contract. G
And in this case the arbitration· clause so widely worded as disputes
arising out of the contract or in relation !o the contract or execution
of the.works would comprehend. Within its compass a claim for
compensation related to estimates .and ·arising out ofthe'contract.
The test is whether it is necessary to have recourse to the contract
to settle.the dispu.te that'has arise.n.'

VJ (See Russel onJ\rbitration 20th ed. pag< 85/
•
158 SUPREME COURT RllPORTS [1~84] 3 S.C~R.
A We may now tum to some. decision to which our attention was
drawn. The first case we would like to.refer to is A. M. Mair & Co. v.
Gordhanda.•s Sagarmull.' The Court was concerned with the arbitra·
tio.n clause drawn up as ; "all matters, question, disp~tes, differences •
and/or claims, arising out of and/or concerning, and/or in connec-
tion and/or in consequence of, or relating · fo, the contract etc."
·B The question arose whether the due date·uJJder the contract was
extended within the time, earlier reserved. The arbiirator held that
the due date of the contract has been extend.ed by a mutual agree·
ment and the respondents were held liable to pay a sum of .Rs. 4,116
together with .interest at the rates specified in the award. It was
c contended that the,dispute is not covered by the arbitration clause.
This Court whilli holding that the dispute is covered by the arbi.trar
tion clause observed that looking to the rival contentions, ·such a
dispute, the determination of which turns on the true coristr-uction of
the contract, would also seem to be a dispute. under or arising out
· of or concerning the contract. The· test formulated .was that if in
D . settling a dispute, a reference to the contract is necessary, such a
dispute would be cove.red by the arbitration clause: •

In Ruby General lns.urance Co. Ltd v. Pearey Lal Kumar AIJa
.Another, this Court was concerned with the ·clause in a. policy of
insurance .which provided that differences .arising out of the policy
E .11hall be referred to the decision of the arbitrator. In construing this
clause, this Court observed as under:.

"The test is whether recourse to the contract by wh.ich
the parties are bound is necessary for the purpose of
determining the matter .in dispute between them .. If such
F recourse to the contract is necessary, then the matter must·
come within the scope of the arbitr~tor's jurisdiction."

In Union af India v. Salween Timber Cou;truction (lndia) &
Ors.• this Court observed that the test for determining the question
is whether recpurse to the contract by .which both the parties are
G bound is necessary for the purpose of determining whether the claim
of the respondent.firm is justified or'otherwise. If it is necessary to
. take recourse to the terms of the contract for the purpose of deci-
ding the matter in dispute, it must be held that the matter is within

ff · (1) [i950]S.C.R. 792.
(2} ]19521 S.C.R. 501. .
(3) [1%9] 2 S.C.\l. µ4,
TAll.APORB CO. v. COCHIN SHIPYARD (Desai, J.) 159

the scope of the arbitratron clause and the aiitrators have jurisdiction A
to decide the same. In so stating the proportion of [aw, reliance was
placed on Heyman & Anr. v. Danvins Ltd.'. in which it was held
that 'where the parties are atone in asserting that they entered into
. • a' binding contract, but a difference l!as arisen between them whether
there has been a breach by one side or the other, or whether circum- B
stances have arisen which have discharged ·one or both parties froln
further performance, such differences should be regarded as differe-
nces which have arisen in resp\'Ct of or 'with .regard to, or 'under'
j the contract, .and an arbitration clause whicl\ uses these, or. similar
expressions should be construed accordingly. The Court affirme.a,.
the decision in Ruby General lnsurance Co. Ltd. case. c

In Astro Vencedor Compania Naviera S. A. of Panama v. ·
Mabanaft G. M. B. H. ·The J)iamianos' a question arose whether a
claim in tort would be covered by the arbitration clause? It was
admitted that "1'e claim for wrongful arres\ is a claim in tort. And D
it was contended that a claim in to1 t cannot come within the arbitra-
tion clause. The Court of Appeal speaking through Lord Denning
held that the claim in tort would be co".ered by the arbitration
clause, if the claim or the issue has a sufficiently close connection
with the claim under the contract.
E

In Gunter ilenck v. Andre & ClE. S. A.' the Court (Queen's
'BenchDivisb n (Commerci'al Court) help thit the words 'arising out
of clearly extend the mooning than would otherwise be applied to the
clause were it limited: to 'all disputes ·arising under the ~onfract. F

In t
the facts before .us, th~ respond en~ ~n para of its counter•
slatement filed before 'the arbitrator spec1f1ca!ly referred to clause.
16 of the General Conditions of Contract and to the AaditiOnal
Terms and Conditions Modifications forming part of 'the contract G
document. In paragarph II, it was stated that th~ claim of the appel-
lant was completely outside the purview of the contract and the same
does not fall within the purview of the first paragraph of Clause 40

O> [19421 A.c. 3S6 @ 366.
(2) (19711 2 Q.B, 588.
H
..
(3) (1970) I Lloyd's Law Reports 235,
·-.: .. : .. L

160 SUPREME CO:URT REPORTS (1984) 3 S.C.l\o
'
·A
. it was further stated in paragraph 13 that contract provides for
escalation in certain respects and that is the only escalation which is
admissible in terms of. the contract ~d the claim made by the
appellant does not ·come within the escalation clanse nor in the
agreed. formula relating· to such escalatjon. The contratcor relied
B
- upon Clause 13 of 'the .Additional Terms and Co~ditions Modfications
.which form part of the contract document to sustain its claim. From
the pleadings, it cl~arly transpires that both the parties had recourse '
to the contract which is admittedly entered into in support. of. the
. C rival contentions and ,therefore, the ,claim made by the ·appellant
. would be covered by the arbitration clause, which is of the widest
.amplitud.e, It is thus satisfactorily esfablished that the claim made
by tlie contractor would be covered by the arbitration clause.

D
Mr. Nariman also wanted us to examine whether ihe claill)
made by the arbitrator would•. be admissible on the principle of
quantu#i meriut. lt is not necessary to ex~mine this aspect at all° in
·the view which we are taking.

E
He also wanted us to adopt an approach that the effort of the
court must be to uphold the award and not to reject it. We, consider
it llnnecessary to dilate upon it .

F
The discussion leads to the .ine.scapable conclusion that a
specific question.if law touching the jurisdiction of the arbitrator
was specifically referred to the arbitrator and therefore the arbitrator
decision is binding on the parties and the award cannot be s~t aside .
G
on the sole ground that there was an erro~ Qf law apparent on . the
face of the award. It is also established that the claim for compensa-
tion made by the arbitrator which led to the dispute was covered by
the arbitration clause. The quantum of compensation awarded by

H
the arbitrator was never disputed nor qU:estioned. Therefore, the
High Court was clearly in error reversing the decision of the trial ,...;
~ ~.
901,1rt.
TARAPORE CO. v. COCHIN SHIPYARD (De~i, J.) 161

Accordingly this appeal succeeds and is allowed and the Judg-
ment of the High Court is set aside and the Judgment atid order of
the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam dated March 30, 1979 is restored
with costs throughout-

B
• N.V.K. 'Appeal gllowed.
. _\
•

y

•

- ;

' j •·