( 1 ) C. M. A. No. 70 of 1988 is filed by the Central Warehousing Corporation Construction Cell against the judgment and decree dated 15-10-1987 of the lower Court in O. P. No. 328 of 1984 filed for passing judgment and decree in terms of the award dated 12-11-1984. C. M. A. No. 72 of 1988 is also filed by the Central Warehousing Corporation Construction Cell against the dismissal of O. P. No. 2 of 1985 filed for setting aside the award dated 12-11-1984 to the extent of allowing Claim Nos. 1,2,3,8,9,11,12 and 14.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the respondent/contractor entered into contract with the appellant vide contract dated 3-10-1978 for the construction of 5000 M. T. capacity godown with ancillary buildings for Rs. 11,05,050-80. The said work was commenced by the respondent/contractor during the first week of November, 1978 and was completed on 10-4-1980 after a period of 17 months as against the stiuplated period of six months. The respondent/contractor raised several claims to the tune of Rupees Twelve lakhs under different heads. The appellant disputed the claims as improper and the dispute was referred to the Arbitrator. The parties have filed claims and counter-claims and objections before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator by his award dated 12-11-1984 allowed claims 2 and 3 in full and claims 1, 8, 9, 11 and 12 in part with interest and dismissed the rest of the claims. O. P. No. 328 of 1984 is filed by the Contractor to make the award a rule of the Court and O. P. No. 2 of 1985 is filed by the appellant to set aside the award dated 12-11-1984 to the extent of allowing of claims 1,2,3,8,9,11,12 and 14. The lower Court after considering the entire material on record, dismissed the O. P. filed by the appellant and allowed the O. P. filed by the Contractor and made the award a rule of the Court by its judgment dated 15-10-1987 and also granted subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the amounts awarded from the date of decree till realisation. Against that the present appeals are filed.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant Sri K. Jagannadha Rao contended that clause 25 of the contract provides that where the total amount of the award exceeds Rs. 50,000/-, the Arbitrator must give reasons for the award, but in the present case the Arbitrator has not given any reasons and that therefore the award is vitiated by the error apparent on the face of record and therefore the same is liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent-Contractor Sri Anantha Babu contended that the Arbitrator is bound by the terms of the contract and there is no condition in the appointment order that the Arbitrator has to pass a reasoned award. He further contended that even if it is taken for the sake of argument that the Arbitrator has to give reasons for the award, the award passed by the Arbitrator is with reasons. He also contended that the award cannot be scrutinised by the Court to adjudicate the reasonableness of the reasons given by the Arbitrator, that there are no merits in the appeals and the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) IN view of the above said contentions, the important question that arises for consideration is, where a contract provides that the Arbitrator must give reasons in cases where the total amount of the award exceeds Rs. 50,000/-, whether violation of the same amounts to error apparent on the face of record, thereby vitiating the award.

( 6 ) IT is relevant to refer to Clause 25 of the Contract, which reads as under:"except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship of materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions orders or these cond