LINGARAJA RATH, J.

( 1 ) ALL these cases arise out of a common order passed by Subordinate Judge, tadepalligudem relating to an award passed by the arbitrator on the claims preferred by the appellant in C. M. A. . No. 1854 of 1989. The appellant and the respondent State in that appeal are referred to, for the sake of convenience, in the present judgment as the appellant and the respondent.

( 2 ) THE appellant undertook the contract of widening and strengthening the carriage way K. M. 79. 50 to K. M. 111. 50 of V. V. Road. In the execution of the work dispute arose between the parties which was referred to an arbitrator who submitted his award on 3-10-1987. The appellant had preferred nine items of claims and interest on each item. The arbitrator allowed claim items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 for various sums but rejected claim items 5, 7, 8 and 9. He also awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of entering upon the reference i. e. , 28-4-1985 till the date of decree or payment. The appellant filed O. S. No. 5 of 1988 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem seeking the award to be made the rule of the Court. The respondent filed O. P. No. 35 of 1987 under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award so far as it had allowed the claims in favour of the appellant. The learned Subordinate Judge in his common judgment on 27-4-1989 partly allowed O. S. No. 5 of 1988 by confirming the award so far as claim items 1, 2 and 3 were concerned but refused to confirm the award in respect of claim items 4 and 6. Similarly, O. P. No. 35 of 1987 was also partly allowed in refusing to confirm me claim items 4 and 6 but confirming the award in respect of claim items 1, 2 and 3. The learned Judge also reduced the interest as awarded by me arbitrator from 15 to 12 per cent per annum from the date of the award to the date of the suit and thereafter directed the interest to be at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of payment.

( 3 ) C. M. A. No. 1854 of 1989 has been preferred as relating to O. P. No35 of l987 and C. R. P. No. 3895 of 1989 has also been filed by me appellant as relating to the judgment in O. S. No. 5 of 1988. Similarly, the respondent filed C. M. A. No. 634 of 1990 as relating to O. P. No. 35 of 1987 and C. R. P. No. 3484 of 1990 has been filed by them against the judgment in O. S. No. 5 of 1988. C. M. A. No. 634 of 1990 has already been dismissed by this Court on 1-3-1996 for default.

( 4 ) MR. K. Prabhaker, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted of his challenge being confined only to the judgment as passed by the learned subordinate Judge and candidly submitted that no claim which had not been allowed by the arbitrator is being pressed. It is his submission mainly mat the learned Subordinate Judge refused to confirm me award in respect of claim items 4 and 6 only because in support of the award no reason had been assigned. The A. P. Amendment to the Arbitration Act was introduced by Act 1 of 1990 and prior to it, there was no requirement for the arbitrator to pass reasoned awards. The award having been made on 3-10-1987, there was no necessity for the arbitrator to give reasons. It is in this context the submission is made that the reasons which weighed with the learned Subordinate Judge to set a side the award were misconceived as non-speaking awards are perfectly enforceable awards and are not tobe set aside merely because for not assigning any reasons. The exception taken by Mr. Prabhaker to the Judgment on that count is wholly justified as it was not open to the learned Subordinate Judge, as he appears to have done, to set aside the award only because of the absence of reasons in support of it. But even so, an award is available to be not confirmed or set aside for error apparent on the face of it which consideration would include the fact of there having been no arbitration clause in the agreement in respec t of the dispute concerned or the arbitrator as otherwise having no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document