STATE OF KERALA Vs. A. SAINULABDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the respondents in O. P. (Arb.) No. 291, of 1986 against the Judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Trivandrum in the above arbitration O. P. By the said Judgment, the Court below accepted the award in Arbitration Case No. F5-8568/1985 dated 24th July 1986 made by the Arbitrator who was a retired Superintending Engineer. The respondent in the appeal is a contractor who had undertaken a contract for the construction of a Court building at Punalur. An agreement was executed on 2 Ist March 1981 between the appellants and the respondent. Even though the time was extended for the completion of the contract, it was not fulfilled even within the extended time. Consequently, the contract was terminated on 15th September 1984 at the instance of the Government. Certain dispute arose between the parties in respect of the above construction of the building and the contractor filed the suit O. S. (Arb.) No. 188/84 under S.8 of the Arbitration Act, ,1-940 (for short the 'Act'). Accordingly, an Arbitrator was appointed by the Court. The Arbitrator filed the award in court. The objections were filed by the appellants and thereafter the court below accepted the award and passed a decree in terms of the award.

(2.) The main contention advanced by the Government Pleader before this court is that the Arbitrator misconducted himself in awarding the claims. In other words, his plea is that there is legal misconduct. Before considering this contention it would be worthwhile to examine the scope of interference of this court in the present appeal. This appeal is against the Judgment accepting the award and passing a decree thereon. The Arbitrator after specifying claims, has shown the amount awarded against each. No doubt it was not a speaking award. When the award is not a speaking award, the interference by this court is very much limited. The Supreme Court in N. Chellappan v. Kerala State Electricity Board AIR 1975 SC 230 held thus:

(3.) What is urged by the Government Pleader is that the State has filed an objection before the court below and in that objection it has raised a point that the Arbitrator has legally misconducted himself and that said objection shall be treated as a petition under S.30 of the Act. S.30 of the Act prescribes what are the grounds for setting aside the award. An award can be set aside under the said provision on any of the three grounds mentioned hereunder: