CHANDRA CONSTRUCTION CO. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LORD Dunedin said in Champsey Co.v.Jivraj Balloo Co.A.I.R.1923 P.C.66 at Page 69,thus: "An error in law on the face of the award means,in their Lordships 'view,that you can find in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto,as for instance,a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his judgment,some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which you can then say is erroneous." This passage is oft quoted by Courts in India while considering the question of setting aside awards on the ground of error apparent on the face of the records.

(2.) THE court below has set aside,two awards for identical reasons.It has been found that the awards in terms of which the Appellants here "wanted decrees to be passed by that court were liable to be set aside on the application of the State which was a party to the award.Such awards were set aside by the court below.The awards concerned disputes between contractors who had entered into agreements with the State Government for the construction of the work of forming a canal.In terms of the agreements the disputes were subjected to arbitration before the Government Arbitrator for engineering contracts.The Arbitrator found that the contractors were guilty of breach.The Arbitrator further found in both the cases that the cancellation of the contracts by the Respondents was in order but the liability of the contractors on this account was to be limited to forfeiture of the security amount.Further it was found that for the works executed by the claimants,the Respondents were to pay a further specified sum of money.The retention amount was to be released to the contractors in the two cases.There are further provisions in both awards that the Respondents were to pay 6 per cent interest on the amounts of the Awards from the date of the awards till the dates of the decrees.

(3.) THE only controversy before us is whether,In the circumstances,the court below was right in considering that there was error apparent on the face of the record.Learned Government Pleader attempts to support the judgment on the premises that the court was in error in refusing to interfere with the award in spite of the fact that the court having found that the cancellation of the contract was proper it limited the liability of the contractor to the security amount.