OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI,T. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Basing upon a works contract dated 3.11.1993, a dispute arose between the appellant and the respondents. Ultimately the mater was referred to the arbitrator in the year 1998 as per order dated 2.12.1998 in A.R. No. 14/1998 on the file of this Court. This Court directed the arbitrator to publish the award within six months. Thereafter, the period for publishing the award was extended till 1.4.2000. The arbitrator did not publish the award within the time limit prescribed by this Court. It appears that after the expiry of the period, the parties were heard till 26.9.2000 and an award was published on 16.5.2001. Assailing the said award, the appellant approached the District Judge, Trivandrum in O.P. (Arb) No. 78/2001 raising various grounds under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the impugned order dated 24.2.2006, that petition was dismissed. Assailing the above order, this appeal was preferred under Section 37 of the Act. Heard both sides. Perused the impugned order as well as the impugned award. Before us mainly three grounds were urged. They are:

(2.) We shall first consider whether the award is a speaking one or not. It is not in dispute that the parties have not agreed for a non speaking award. Therefore, the arbitrator is bound to state the reason upon which the arbitration award is based upon. That is the mandate of Section 31(3) of the Act which reads as follows:

(3.) For a correct appraisal of the argument, we find that a reading of the relevant portion of the award would be relevant.