Judgment

THOMMEN, J.:- Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7071-72 of 1986.

2. These appeals are brought against the common judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.M.A. No. 456 of 1984 and C.R.P. No. 2743 of 1984. The High Court set aside in part the common judgment of the Ist Additional Chief Judge, Civil Court at Hyderabad, in Original Suit No. 174 of 1983 and O. P. No. 49 of 1983 whereby he made the award of the umpire (hereinafter referred to as theumpireor arbitrator) a rule of Court and passed a decree in terms of the award together with interest on the principal amount awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the decree. The High Court set aside the decree in respect of Claim Nos. Ill, VI and IX and affirmed the decree for the other claims. The main Appeals Nos. 338 and 339 of 1991 arising from S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1573 and 1574 of 1986 are by the Associated Engineering Co. (hereinafter referred to asthe Contractor). It challenges the judgment of the High Court setting aside the decree of the Civil Court in respect of Claim Nos. III, VI and IX. The other appeals arising from S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7071 and 7072 of 1986 are by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and they are against the judgment of the High Court confirming the decree of the Civil Court in respect of Claim Nos. II, IV and VII(4).

3. The High Court set aside Claim Nos. III, VI and IX on the ground that those claims were not supported by the agreement between parties and that the arbitrator travelled outside the contract in awarding those claims. While that portion of the judgment of the High Court is supported by the Government, the Contractor submits that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with a non-speaking award. The Government challenges the judgment of the High Court in so far as it affirmed the findings of the Civil Court in respect of Claim Nos. II, IV and VII(4) on the ground that the arbitrator awarded those claims totally unsupported by the contract.

4. Mr. A. B. Dewan, appearing for the Contractor, submits that the umpire made a non-speaking award. He did not incorporate any document as a part of the award, notwithstanding his reference to the contract. In the circumstances, counsel submits, the law does not permit interference by the Court with such an award.

5. Mr. K. Madhav Reddy , appearing for the Government, on the other hand, submits that the umpire made a speaking award with reference to the claims and he gave reasons for awarding those claims. It is true, counsel says, that the umpire made only brief reference to the provisions of the contract and his reasons for making the award. But notwithstanding the. brevity of his reasoning, he has spoken sufficiently clearly as a result of which errors of law and fact have become apparent on the face of the award disclosing that the umpire acted contrary to, and unsupported by, contract, thereby exceeding his jurisdiction. He says that the umpire has referred to the contract not merely for the purpose of reciting or narrating his authority to hear the matter and resolve the dispute, but for incorporating it as a part of the award. In doing so, he exceeded the contract, not merely by misinterpreting it, but by travelling totally outside it, and by making an award without regard to and independent of the contract. A number of decisions have been cited on either side in support of the respective contentions.

6. The award was made in respect of disputes which arose between the Government and the Contractor for the cement concrete lining under Agreement dated 20-1-1981 (as supplemented subsequently) in connection with the construction of Nagarjunasagar Dam. The parties filed their pleadings and documents before the arbitrator/ umpire. There were 15 claims apart from the general claim for cost and interest. As stated earlier, we are concerned only with Claim Nos. Ill, VI and IX which are claims awarded by the. umpire and decreed by the Civil Court, but set aside by the High