STATE OF KERALA Vs. RAVEENDRANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are brought by the State of Kerala and the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Central Circle, Trichur, from the judgments of the learned subordinate Judge, Trivandrum rejecting their objections and making each of the six awards of the arbitrator a rule of court. The award in each case was made by the Chief Engineer (Arbitration) of the Government of Kerala to whom disputes were referred in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated 10-2-1977 entered into between the appellants (the "state") and the respondent (the "contractor" ). Clause. 24 of that agreement, so far as it is material, reads: "24 Arbitration:- In case of any dispute or difference between the parties to the contract either during the progress or after the completion of the works or after the determination abandonment, or breach of the contract, at to the interpretation of the contract, or as to any matter or thing arising thereunder, : then either party shall forthwith give to the other notice of such dispute or difference and such dispute or difference shall be and is hereby referred to the arbitration of the Government Arbitrator for dealing with arbitration cases. Trivandrum, mentioned in the 'articles of Agreement' (hereinafter called the 'arbitrator')and the award of such arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. (emphasis supplied) Each award concerns a separate "reach" of the ase work for the construction of sea wall. In terms of the agreement dated 10-2-197 7 , the Contractor was bound to complete the work within twelve months from 4-4-197 7 which was the date on which the site was handed over to him. However, since he was not in a position to complete the work in anyone of these reaches within the stipulated time, i. e. , on or before 3-4-1978, he sought and obtained in each case extension of time till 31-8-1979 by which date the work in all the reaches was completed. Extension of time was sought and obtained by the Contractor on the definite undertaking that he would not claim any extra rates-i. e. , over and above the agreed rates for the work executed by him during the period subsequent to 3-4-1978 (see Exts. R9 to R11 ).

(2.) DISPUTES arose between the parties by reason of the state's refusal to settle some of the claims raised by the Contractor. The statement of claims filed by the Contractor before the arbitrator contained various claims out of which one of them was for payment in excess of the agreed rates for the work executed by him during the period subsequent to 3-4-1978. This was objected to by the State. In its statement of defence filed before the arbitrator it was specifically stated that the contract between the parties did not postulate any extra payment for the work executed subsequent to the expiry of the original period of the contract and that the Contractor had by his declaration undertaken not to claim any extra rate for the work executed by him during the extended period commencing on 4-4-1978. Exts. R9 to R. 11 containing the declaration of the Contractor in each case were specifically referred to in the statement of defence. The arbitrator rejected all the claims of the contractor except his claim for extra rates during the extended period. Each award provides: "claims (a) to (e):- The respondents shall pay the claimant a Twelve and a half (121/2) per cent increase over the agreed rates for all items of work carried out after 3-4-1978 " (emphasis supplied)

(3.) THE award does not speak except to one fact. It says that extra rates have to be paid for the work done after 3-4-1978. It gives no reasons. No document is specifically incorporated in it. THE question is whether evidence of matters not appearing on the face of the award is admissible in order to consider whether, as contended by the State, the arbitrator has acted in excess of or without jurisdiction; and, if so is the award liable to be set aside by the court. Before we deal with that question, we shall briefly consider to what extent courts generally interfere with an arbitrator's award.