KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD Vs. O. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the Kerala State Housing Board. The respondent is a contractor. The work relating to the construction of two separate blocks of flats in the Rental Housing Scheme formulated by the appellant, was awarded to the respondent contractor. The agreements in this behalf were executed on 16 -9 -1981, with a period of 18 months fixed for performance of the contract. The work had therefore to be completed by 15 -3 -1983. According to the respondent, he started the work in right earnest. The work was however completed in time, and there were charges of default on either side. The respondent would contend that the appellant had unilaterally changed the plan and the design of the buildings, that there was delay on their part in setting out the buildings as well as in furnishing structural details, and that there was delay/non -supply/interrupted supply of essential items like cement, steel etc. all of which hampered the execution of the work. The respondent would contend that despite all these hindrances which stood in the way of the timely execution of the work, he completed'a substantial portion of the work undertaken within the time stipulated. The appellant would however cast the blame on the respondent for the non -completion of the work in time. In fact, they terminated the agreements at the risk and cost of the respondent on 15 -3 -1983.

(2.) THE contractor filed two suits O.S. Nos. 86 and 186 of 1983 in the Sub -Court, Trivandrum under sections 5, 8, 11 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 inter alia to refer all the disputes and differences arising between the parties for decision by an arbitrator to be appointed by the court. Commissions were issued by the court to make local inspection, ascertain the extent of the work done, the value thereof and other matters. The Commissioners submitted their reports. The Court referred the disputes and differences to the Arbitration of Sri. Alfred Daniel, a retired District and Sessions Judge. The terms of reference and the points of dispute on which the Arbitrator was to give his award are set forth in the judgments in the two suits. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference, heard the parties and rendered his awards on 3 -2 -1986. We are extracting below the two awards : -

(3.) AFTER the awards were filed in court, the court issued notice, and posted the matters for objections. The appellant - Board filed their objections seeking to set aside the award on the ground of "legal misconduct" of the Arbitrator. It has, however, to be made clear even at this stage that no personal misconduct has been attributed to the Arbitrator, but only legal misconduct, "by solely relying on the facts and figures given by the claimant in making the award." The lower court overruled the objections as in its opinion, no misconduct as envisaged in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act had been made out, and in that view, a decree was passed, in terms of the award on June 7, 1986. The Board is in appeal before us. We extract below the objections to the awards filed by the appellant, in the two cases : - M.F.A. No. 615/86.