(1.) This is a batch of six appeals filed under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The appellant in all the cases is the contractor. CMA Nos. 191/ 81, 42/82, 203/81, 492/81, 313/82 and 782/82 arise out of O.P. Nos. 29, 30, 32, 38, 39 and 40 of 1980 respectively.
(2.) The appellant was a contractor and was employed by the Department of Space, Civil Engineering Division, Sriharikota. There were six contracts dealing with different works to which I shall presently refer. These disputes arising under each of the contracts were referred to an Arbitrator, who is himself a Construction Engineer of the Department of Space, Civil Engineering' Thumba by proceedings dated 19-6-1979 issued by Sri S. Rama lingam, the respondent who is a Construction Engineer CED/DO5/ Sriharikota. The above said order refers to six disputes (among others) out of which the six O.Ps. and six C.M. As. arise. In O.P. 32/80 and O.P. 40/80 one extra item each were added at the instance of the contractor during the course of the inquiry while in O.P. 30/80 two extra items at the instance of the contractor and one counter claim were added at the instance of the respondent. The arbitrator, in separate awards passed on 22-5-1980 gave answers 'allowed' or 'disallowed' in respect of the claims or counter-claims. The respondent has not preferred any objections in the lower Court nor any appeal to this Court whereas the contractor has preferred objections in the lower Court and on their rejection, preferred these six appeals. The penalties levied by the department which have been upheld by the arbitrator are Rs. 24,000/- in O.P. No. 29/80; Rs. 10,000/- in O.P. 3 of 1980; Rs. 3,500/- in O.P. No. 38/80; Rs. 1,000/- in O.P. 39/80; and Rs. 2,000/- in O.P. 40/80, in all Rs. Rs. 40,500/. The above claims are clear from the reference dt. 19-6-79. In O.P. No. 30/80 two further claims by the contractor for Rs. 56,100/- and Rs. 22,214-14 were disallowed by the arbitrator. Likewise in O.P. No. 32/ 80 a claim for Rs. 16,710/- of the contractor and for Rs. 500/- in O.P. 40/80 were disallowed. These extra claims however clear from the awards passed by the arbitrator on 22-5-1980.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. V. Venkataramanaiah is that the awards saying claim 'allowed' or 'disallowed' cannot ever be treated even as non-speaking awards and they are in a stereotyped form couched in identical words (except to the extent of the reference to the separate claims) and that it is clear that the arbitrator did not apply his mind or show any evidence of such application on the face of the award. The arbitrator, it is argued, is bound to obey the law, be it the law of Contracts or Limitation etc. and if he contravenes any law, the award can be set aside. Several rulings were cited.