Judgment : The Petitioner (Original Respondent) has challenged award dated 18 August 2008 and subsequent modified award dated 30 January 2012 by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) passed by the Sole Arbitrator. 2 The operative parts of the awards are as under:- 18 AUGUST 2008: “a) The Claimants are held to be entitled to recover from the Respondents a sum of Rs.45,55,000/- being the balance value/price of the machinery, worked out after deducting a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- realized towards the sale proceeds of the retrieved machinery; b) The Claimants are held to be entitled to the interest @ 10% per annum as under from the Respondents: i) For the period with effect from 14.1.2005 to 28.11.2005 on Rs.66,55,000/-. ii) For the period with effect from 29.11.2005 to 12.4.2006 on Rs.44,55,000/- iii) For the period with effect from 18.08.2008 (i.e. date of the Award) till realization on Rs.44,55,000/-. c) The Claimants are held to be entitled to the cost in this Reference at Rs.1,00,000/-; d) The Respondents shall pay to the Claimants amounts as awarded above.” 30 JANUARY 2012:- “In view of findings of the Tribunal on Points Nos. 10A and 10B above, the plea raised by the Respondents for breach of contract on part of the Claimants for not procuring Insurance Coverage in respect of “Owners Supply Items” stands rejected.” 3. The basic events as per the Petitioner are as under:- The Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the constructions of vessels. The Respondent is engaged in owning, operative and managing ships. In the year 1996, the Respondent approached the Petitioner for construction of two vessels. 4. On 2 January 1997, the Respondent and the Petitioner entered into an agreement for the construction of two ships. The Respondent was to supply all items required by the Petitioner for construction of the ships. The Respondent started construction of one of the ships first. This ship was being constructed as Yard 16 of the Petitioner's shipyard. The second ship was to be constructed as Yard 17. On 24 September 1997, the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into another agreement for modification of the vessel. 5. On 29 September 1997, the Respondent accepted technical delivery of the vessel of Yard 16 which was named “M V Priyanka”. The second ship was to be constructed as Yard 17. On 24 September 1997, the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into another agreement for modification of the vessel. 5. On 29 September 1997, the Respondent accepted technical delivery of the vessel of Yard 16 which was named “M V Priyanka”. On 27 March 1998, the Respondent again sought modification of the vessel in order to make it an ocean going vessel. Since the earlier modifications sought by the Respondent had been completed by the Petitioner, on 28 March 1998, the Respondent again accepted technical delivery of the vessel. The Petitioner then carried out the further modifications to make M V Priyanka an ocean going vessel. The Petitioner made use of some of the equipment which had been delivered for use in Yard No.17 in the construction of M V Priyanka which was Yard 16. The equipments so used were four impellers, 2 mechanical seals, 29 aluminum bolted type windows. 6. In the month of March 2000, the Respondent cancelled the countract for building the 2nd vessel which was to be built as yard No.17 but did not take back the equipments and parts from the Petitioner's shipyard thereby occupying space in the yard and making it impossible for the Petitioner to use the said yard in any other shipbuilding jobs. 7. On 27 February 2001, the Petitioner called upon the Respondent to make a payment of Rs.15,26,000/- towards rent up to 31 March 2001 and further rent at the rate of Rs.20,000 per month thereafter. On 18 April 2001, the Petitioner wrote to the Respondent of the difficulties it faced on account of delayed payments. The Respondent informed the Petitioner that it was facing a financial crisis. On 2 May 2001, the Petitioner agreed to complete a survey and other documentation work subject to an additional payment of rupees nine lacs payable in three equal installments of which rupees three lacs were paid. 8. On 4 October 2001, the Respondent issued two cheques, one for Rs.97,690/-and the other for Rs.1,95,520/- towards completion of the second stage of the work, but wrongfully issued stop payment instructions to his Bankers. The Petitioner, therefore, exercised its right of lien over the Respondent's goods. On 8 October 2001, the Respondent informed the Petitioner that it would not pay rent from 30 September 2001 onwards on account of a purported alternative arrangement. The Petitioner, therefore, exercised its right of lien over the Respondent's goods. On 8 October 2001, the Respondent informed the Petitioner that it would not pay rent from 30 September 2001 onwards on account of a purported alternative arrangement. The Petitioner replied vide its letter of the same day asking for rent until the Respondent cleared its goods from the Petitioner's shipyard. On 12 November 2001, the Respondent refused to make payment of additional rent and also returned the Petitioner's invoices for the months of October and November 2001. 9. On 12 December 2001, the Respondent invoked the arbitration clause and thereafter filed a Arbitration Petition under Section 9 seeking relief to the extent that the Petitioner should not deal with the items and appointment of Court Receiver with respect to its goods lying in the Petitioner's shipyard. The dispute was then referred to sole arbitrator. On 5 May 2003, the learned Arbitrator passed an interim award asking the Petitioner to cover the Respondent's equipment with water proof tarpaulin. The Petitioner complied with the said order and also arranged for photographs to be taken. Thereafter, the tarpaulin was removed only during the subsequent inspection. 10. On 14 January 2005, the learned Arbitrator passed a final award directing the Respondent to pay a sum of Rupees three lacs and to then take possession of the Respondent's goods lying in the Petitioner's shipyard. On 22 January 2005, the advocate of the Respondent wrongly sought inspection of the goods as a precondition to making the payment of rupees three lacs. On 10 February 2005, the Respondent made an application to the learned Arbitrator praying that the Petitioner be directed to give inspection of the goods lying in its shipyard. On 7 April 2005, the learned Arbitrator passed an order directing the Petitioner to grant the inspection. The Respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking inspection of its equipments and on 16 May 2005, the High Court passed an order allegedly by consent, directing the Petitioner to provide inspection and also allowed the Respondent to photograph the equipment. The Respondent then made false allegations that the equipment was not stored properly by the Petitioner. 11. On 20 June 2005, the Respondent filed a false police complaint in the Kashimira Police Station against the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner has stolen the said missing goods. The Respondent then made false allegations that the equipment was not stored properly by the Petitioner. 11. On 20 June 2005, the Respondent filed a false police complaint in the Kashimira Police Station against the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner has stolen the said missing goods. On 28 October 2005, the Respondent's representative inspected the Petitioner's shipyard with M/s. Rane Engineers and Surveyors who prepared the valuation report valuing the machinery at site as being worth only Rs.13,50,000/-. The entire valuation was completed in only an hour. On 13 November 2005, the Respondent's representative visited the Petitioner's shipyard and took possession of the equipment. The equipment was then clandestinely sold by private treaty to one Four Star Marine Services Limited for a paltry sum of Rs.21,00,000/-. 12. On 10 February 2006, the High Court passed an order in the Arbitration Application filed by the Respondent appointing the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute. The learned Arbitrator then heard the matter. 13. On 18 August 2008, the learned Arbitrator by an award held that the Petitioner was liable to pay Rs.45,55,000/- besides interest and costs to the Respondent despite all the facts set out above. Hence the present Petition. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has strongly relied on paragraphs 6 and 9 in VirajHoldings v. Motilal Oswal Securities Pvt.Ltd and ors. 2002(6) Bom CR 759and submitted to maintain the award so passed:- “6 The aforesaid findings of the learned Arbitrator is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that it is based on improper appreciation of evidence and on the ground that the Arbitrator has failed to take into account certain evidence such as books of accounts, trade logs, etc., which were produced by the petitioner. It is not possible to accept this contention on behalf of the petitioner since what the petitioner really invited this Court to do is to embark upon appraisement of the evidence which has led to the aforesaid conclusion; which is clearly impermissible. It is well-settled that the Arbitrator is the Judge of all that. In the words of the Supreme Court from MCD v. Jagain Nath Ashok Kumar, reported in [1988] 1 SCR 180, as reproduced in Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kerala, reported in [1989] 1 SCR 665:- “Furthermore, in any event, reasonableness of the reasons given by the arbitrator, cannot be challenged. In the words of the Supreme Court from MCD v. Jagain Nath Ashok Kumar, reported in [1988] 1 SCR 180, as reproduced in Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kerala, reported in [1989] 1 SCR 665:- “Furthermore, in any event, reasonableness of the reasons given by the arbitrator, cannot be challenged. Appraisement of evidence by the arbitrator is never a matter which the court questions and considers. If the parties have selected their own forum, the deciding forum must be conceded the power of appraisement of the evidence. The arbitrator is the sole Judge of the quality as well as the quantity of evidence and it will not be for the court to take upon itself the task of being a judge on the evidence before the arbitrator. See the observations of this Court in MCD v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar.” 9. As far as this Court is concerned, I am of the view that the contention on behalf of the petitioner must be rejected in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vijaya Bank v. Maker Development Services, reported in 2001 (3) B.C.R. 652 wherein a Division Bench of this Court observed that the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with an arbitral award can be exercised only when the grounds enumerated in Section 34 of the Act are available. That whether the expression “public policy” has to be given a wider or restricted meaning contravention of law simpliciter is not covered by it. The petitioner's contention that Section 28 is violated when certain evidence is ignored, has no merit. In any case, the complaint is in regard to contravention of law simpliciter. The judgment of the learned single judge referred to above cannot now assist the petitioner.” 15. The same was also the view expressed in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. M/s. Jyoti Construction Company (2003 (4) Mh. L.J. 25)by the learned Single Judge of this court and thereby refused to interfere with the award. 16. By the first award, the monetary compensation has been awarded and by the second/additional award, the issue with regard to the procurement of insurance cover in respect of the “Owners Supply Items”, rejected. Both the parties have filed their respective written notes of arguments and supported their submission by the various citations/authorities. 16. By the first award, the monetary compensation has been awarded and by the second/additional award, the issue with regard to the procurement of insurance cover in respect of the “Owners Supply Items”, rejected. Both the parties have filed their respective written notes of arguments and supported their submission by the various citations/authorities. By order dated 25 March 2011, in Arbitration Petition between the parties and considering clause 10 of the agreement, referring to the obligation to insure the vessel was referred for eliminating the ground for setting aside the award. The learned Arbitrator was not the same Arbitrator who passed the earlier award, rejecting the case of the Petitioner also by relying upon the reasoning and finding given by the earlier Arbitrator. The application under Section 34 against the same was pending on the date when the second additional award was passed. In such circumstances, to what extent, the reasoning given by the earlier Arbitrator can be referred and relied and/or can be the foundation for passing the additional award is also additional factor which needs to be adjudicated in Section 34 Petition at the time of passing the final award. The reasoning are interlinked and interconnected as it is between the parties, based upon the same terms and conditions and the material placed on record. The issues, as well as, the award so passed including the amount awarded, therefore, are also interlinked and interconnected. 17. The learned Arbitrator awarded the monetary compensation by adjusting the sale proceeds as recorded above. The valuation so accepted of Rs.65,55,000/- is under challenge. The Petitioner never accepted and/or admitted those documents relied, referred and filed by the Respondent before the learned Arbitrator. The burden, therefore, was heavy upon the Respondent/claimant to prove the value of the equipments in every aspect. The Respondent though examined Managing Director T. M. Sanghvi, to support the compilation of document filed on record, averred that the value of the equipment supplied to the Petitioner as shown in the Respondent's books of account is of Rs.65,55,000/-. However, there is no supporting documents made/filed on record by way of evidence or otherwise. Mere oral statement, therefore, as referred and relied upon by the learned Arbitrator to pass the award in no way can be stated to be permissible mode of assessing and/or appraising the evidence on record. However, there is no supporting documents made/filed on record by way of evidence or otherwise. Mere oral statement, therefore, as referred and relied upon by the learned Arbitrator to pass the award in no way can be stated to be permissible mode of assessing and/or appraising the evidence on record. The Respondent admittedly did not even produce its books of account in support of their claim amount. The amount so claimed, as stated in the cross/examination by the witness of the Respondent was, “on the basis of cost and price of the equipment.” He further admitted that there were no documents on record to show the cost and the purchase price of the equipment. Admittedly, no invoices for purchase of those equipments are placed on record by the Respondent. Those documents, if any, are and must be within the knowledge and custody of the Respondent. They deliberately not placed on record to support their claimed amount. 18. There is no explanation whatsoever on record to show as to why these documents were not brought on record by way of evidence. The theory that those documents are verified by the Arbitrators and exhibited collectively, but in view of the objection so raised, that invoices were never actually produced on the record, though the witness of the Respondent made the statement that the invoices and lorry receipts were annexed to the statement, but no such invoices or lorry receipts placed on record at any point of time. The Respondent's own case is that they had produced copies of invoices and challan showing value of the machinery and equipments before the first Arbitrator. It is settled that the parties, one who raises monetary claim based upon the documents, must prove the same, specifically when there is no admission and/or acceptance of those documents and its contents at any point of time. An amount so arrived at based on such copies without any other supporting material on record, in my view, is contrary to the provisions of law. Both the Arbitrators, therefore, though passed orders separately, failed to consider this provision of law, which required that while assessing and/or appraising evidence for awarding damages/ compensation, the proof must be on record. The supporting original documents if are missing, based upon such copies and oral submissions, the amount as awarded is impermissible, so also consequential order in every aspect. 19. The supporting original documents if are missing, based upon such copies and oral submissions, the amount as awarded is impermissible, so also consequential order in every aspect. 19. I am inclined to observe that the Respondent failed to prove that the equipments supplied to the Petitioner were valued at Rs.66,55,000/-as the Respondent failed to prove the same. The finding that there was clinching and credible evidence is incorrect. Copies of relevant invoices are on record and not originals. The challenge not made to the earlier award on this ground cannot be the reason not to permit the Petitioner to make the submissions as admittedly both the awards are under challenge in this petition. 20. It is relevant to note that the earlier Arbitrator had specifically not dealt with the valuation of the equipments as the order was to give actual possession of the equipments to the Respondent. The learned Arbitrator, therefore committed patent error in awarding the amount based on no evidence and material on record, as the Respondent failed to prove the same. 21. Another angle is that the items were purchased and handed over to the Petitioner in 1997. The alleged invoices of the year 1997 without producing the original order to handover the same in the year 2005 and further valuation based upon the unsupported documents of the year 1997 without considering the requisite depreciation and principle of mitigating circumstances, the award so passed, is impermissible. 22. The learned Arbitrator, by Award dated 30th January, 2012 failed to appreciate that as per Clause 3.3 and 10 of the agreement dated 2nd January, 1997, it was incumbent on the Respondent to insure items. The Respondent admittedly did not take the necessary insurance cover. The learned Arbitrator failed to consider that though the items were supplied in the year 1997 and the same was cancelled in the year 2000. The obligation to insure the items therefore, just cannot be shifted upon the Petitioner by giving wrong interpretation to the contract clauses. The submission that it was only to insure the items and/or the material is unacceptable. Clause 3.3 provides that the Petitioner shall be responsible for the loss of supplied items only upon the Respondent by submitting requisite insurance papers in respect of the same. The submission that it was only to insure the items and/or the material is unacceptable. Clause 3.3 provides that the Petitioner shall be responsible for the loss of supplied items only upon the Respondent by submitting requisite insurance papers in respect of the same. The submission that the insurance issue was raised for the first time in the written submission before the learned Arbitrator after conclusion of the argument by both the sides, has no substance as the learned Arbitrator as recorded above decided the issue against the Petitioner. The matter was admittedly remanded to adjudicate the issue on insurance. This Court while remanding the matter, never accepted the case of the Respondent that Clause 10 provides insurance of the vessel and not the machinery and the equipment. The cancellation of contract, in no way is sufficient to overlook the obligation as per the agreement, with regard to the insurance of the items/equipments. Merely because those items/equipments were lying at the shipyard of the Petitioner that itself is not sufficient to say that the Respondent was under no obligation to ensure the machinery and equipments. The lien over the property and a charging of rent from the Respondent from storage of machinery and equipment itself shows that those items belonged and were owned by the Respondent and therefore ought to have been insured as per the agreement itself. The Respondent failed to remove those machineries and equipments, at the appropriate stage atleast to avoid further losses and on the foundation of mitigating losses. 23. Therefore taking overall view of the matter, I am inclined to observe that the case is made out by the Petitioner to interfere with the Award so passed. However, considering the fact and circumstances, I am inclined to remand the matter for reconsideration on all points. The learned Arbitrator to pass fresh Award after hearing both the parties by giving an opportunity to them. 24. Considering the issues involved and as the award was passed upon the material placed on record, I am inclined to grant opportunity to parties to lead and/or give more material on record to justify their monetary claims. This is permissible mode under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The fresh initiation of proceeding would cause gross delay in the early settlement of rival claims between the parties. 25. This is permissible mode under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The fresh initiation of proceeding would cause gross delay in the early settlement of rival claims between the parties. 25. It is settled that the Arbitrator is bound by the basic principle of all Law of Evidence and/or Code of Civil Procedure and so also the law of proving damages/ compensation including principle of mitigating of damages. This is not the case of two possible views of the matter. Clause 3.3 of Arbitration agreement was just overlooked while interpreting the issue/ clauses of insurance. That according to me it is relevant to decide the issue of insurance of equipments/machineries also. Even though, the issue of insurance if goes in favour of the Petitioner and/or against the Respondent, then also the amounts of compensation so awarded needs to be reconsidered again. 26. Resultantly following order. ORDER a) Award dated 18 August 2008 and subsequent modified award dated 30 January 2012 are quashed and set aside. b) The matter is remanded for fresh hearing on all points. c) The learned Arbitrator/or other to pass order after giving an opportunity to both the parties and matter is expedited. d) All points are kept open. e) There shall be no order as to costs.