Arbitrator need not give reasons: SC

The Supreme Court has ruled last week that an arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration Act 1940 need not give reasons for his conclusions, unless there is a condition to do so under the contract.

If the parties wanted reasons to be recorded, it was open to the parties to make a provision in the agreement, the court said in the case, Rajendra Construction Company vs Maharashtra Housing Development Authority.

The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the Bombay High Court, which had ruled otherwise. In this case, the construction company disputed the bill of the authority and wanted a higher amount with interest.

The civil court appointed an arbitrator who gave an award in the company's favour. The state authority challenged the award arguing that it was given without indicating the reasons for its conclusions. The high court accepted the contention but the Supreme Court allowed the company's appeal.

It further clarified that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the arbitrator must give reasons unless agreed upon otherwise.

Order on animal slaughter deferred

A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has concluded its hearing and reserved judgment in a batch of appeals regarding various state laws relating to slaughter of animals by meat industry. The larger Bench was constituted because it will have to review earlier judgments of the court regarding the state laws.

The main appeals were moved by the Gujarat government and the Ahimsa Army Manav Kalyan Trust. Several issues regarding meat export, disposal of aged draught animals, food and cultural habits were argued for two weeks before the bench headed by the Chief Justice.

Bharat & Company gets legal relief

The Supreme Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh trade tax authorities to pay Bharat & Company of Mumbai the entire sale proceeds from the auction of gambier consignment it had sent to its client in the state.

The goods were seized in Jhansi and sold by the state authorities, applying the provisions of the UP Trade Tax Act. The state authorities had alleged that the purchaser in UP had imported the goods with the intention of avoiding tax, adopting fraudulent means. The Allahabad high court had decided in favour of the state authorities.

The company appealed to the Supreme Court which found that the state authorities had acted illegally. It also observed that the sale was an interstate one and subject to the Central Sales Tax Act and therefore outside the purview of the State law.

HCs restrained in case of pvt contracts

In two judgments delivered last week, the Supreme Court has asserted that the high courts cannot exercise its writ powers in private contracts like those between an employer and an employee.

In Binny Ltd vs V Sadasivan, some managers had challenged their termination through a writ petition in the Madras high court. It declared that the contract between the company and some managers were illegal as well as their termination.

The Supreme Court held that the high court was not entitled to make such a declaration in a private dispute. In D S Veer Ranji vs CIBA Speciality Chemicals Ltd, the Bombay high court had dismissed the writ petition of the corporate legal manager against his termination.

The high court held that it could not enter into a private dispute without an element of public duty. The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court view.

Orissa HC order criticised

The Supreme Court last week asked the Orissa High Court to reconsider its decision striking down a notification of the Union labour ministry regarding minimum wages in the mining industry.

The Supreme Court criticised the high court judgment in the case, Union of India vs Essel Mining & Industries Ltd, which was bulky but did not contain the reasoning for its conclusion.

"It is not the number of pages which is relevant," the Supreme Court remarked, "it is the sufficiency of reasons to justify the conclusions... the conclusions are not only confusing but also make little sense."