Himachal Pradesh High Court Sets Aside “Incomprehensible” Single Judge Order Modifying Arbitral Award

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside a Single Judge's order modifying an arbitral award in a dispute over the supply of Anganwadi kits, holding that the judgment was incomprehensible and lacked clear reasoning. The court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi emphasised the need for clarity in judicial writing.

It observed, “A judgment culminates in a conclusion. Its contents represent the basis for the conclusion. All conclusions should be supported by reasoning duly recorded. The reasons in the judgment should be intelligible and logical. The purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse or confound. The judgment must make sense to those whose lives and affairs are affected by the outcome of the case. Judgment of the High Court serve as precedents to guide future benches. This Court in the present appeal and the counsels representing the respective parties have found it difficult to navigate through the incomprehensible language in the impugned judgment.”

Referring to State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood, the court noted that judgments must be written in a manner that allows litigants and stakeholders to understand the reasoning and outcome.

The case arose from a December 2012 tender for supplying 18,352 Anganwadi education kits across Himachal Pradesh.

After the lowest bidder defaulted, J.K. Exim Private Limited stepped in as the second-lowest bidder and received the contract on February 14, 2013. The company, however, did not meet the March 30, 2013 deadline.

Only a fraction of the supplies was accepted, with the rest rejected for poor quality, prompting the HPSCS Corporation to cancel the contract on June 7, 2013.

J.K. Exim then moved to arbitration. The award, delivered on October 20, 2016, granted it limited relief. Both sides challenged the outcome under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

In a common judgment dated August 13, 2019, the Single Judge partly allowed J.K. Exim's objections and modified the award, while rejecting the Corporation's challenge. That decision was taken in appeal under Section 37.

When the matter came up before the High Court, the judges found the operative portion of the earlier order difficult to follow. The language, they noted, was confusing and the reasoning unclear.

Calling the judgment “incomprehensible,” the court set aside the August 13, 2019 order and sent the case back to the Single Judge for a fresh decision on the Section 34 challenges.

For Appellant (J.K. Exim Private Limited): Advocates Suneet Goel, Vishwas Kaushal, Aman Hansretta.

For Respondents (Director of Women and Child Development, H.P. & HPSCS Corporation): Advocates Ayushi Negi, Prashant Sharma.