The disputes must fall within the scope of the arbitration clause, and lack of evidence must be proven to set aside an award. Judicial misconduct must be demonstrated to challenge an arbitrator's decision.

( 1 ) IN these three appeals the respondents are Contractors who entered into contracts with the military Department for the construction of what are known as "hutted Ancillaries" on a lump sum basis. Letters dated 27-4-43 were addressed to them enclosing the tender documents and they were instructed to submit their tenders within 11 A. M. on 1-8-43. In para. 2 (b) of the letter marked Ext. A the attention of the contractors was drawn to the fact that "the Plinth areas inserted in Col. 15 or Schedule B, are rounded off to the nearest foot" and that it should be understood that the amounts mentioned in Col. 19 against each item (except in the case of provincial items) are fixed amounts and shall not be varied and that the percentage tendered will be deemed to be above or below these amounts. While there is hardly any doubt that the contracts were therefore on a lump sum basis it will be noticed that in Schedule D in which the rates for pricing variations and additions are mentioned, it was stated that it was a list of items rates of the same standard of values as the Plinth area rates, entered in 'schedule B' and shall be used for pricing variations and additions.

( 2 ) THE contention of the contractors is that the above statement in Schedule D led them to think that the lump sums mentioned in Ext. B had been worked out on that basis and that they are therefore entitled to claim money for the work done on that basis and not on the basis ,of their lump sum tender. It was also contended that there was an arithmetical error of Rs. 10,000/- in schedule B and that they were entitled to get this corrected. The contention of the Government was that if there were any mistakes in Schedule B they were immaterial as the contract was clearly on lump sum basis. Moreover, the contractors had signed the final bills as well as no-claim certificates and they cannot reopen the question over again.

( 3 ) WHEN differences arose, the Government proposed to refer the matter to an Arbitrator as had been agreed to under Clause 35 of the contract. Apart from the two points referred to above, the government contended that lorries had been supplied to the contractors at a low rate of Rs. 7-8-0 per lorry per day as per the instinct ions of the Commander Royal Engineers, but that the rate of hire per lorry per day should have been Rs. 45/- and the rate of Rs. 7-8-0 was wrong, unauthorised, and not binding on the Government. The contractors however felt that those differences were not matters that came under the arbitration clause, but both parties submitted the points of difference to an arbitrator, the contractors, raising before him the question of jurisdiction also. The award was:

"that schedule B prices and the total amount shall not be altered and that the contractor shall not be compensated; and that the rate fixed by C. R. E for hire of Military Transport is binding and that the Government have no claim against the contractor in this respect".

Petitions were therefore filed against the respondents under Section 14 (2), Arbitration Act. On the other hand the contractors filed petitions for setting aside the award, stating the facts of their case and contending that Clause 35 of the contract under which the matter was referred to arbitration did not apply to the case; that the arbitrator should have taken evidence before giving the award, that the award is liable to be set aside for judicial misconduct since the Arbitrator has deliberately and intentionally misinterpreted the law and that the award is not based on any evidence. On the other hand it was contended by the Government that if the contractors wanted to adduce evidence they should have tendered the evidence and that no request was made for examining any witness. The allegations made by the contractors in para 13 of their affidavits about the arbitrator having ascertained what exact relief they wanted are denied and even otherwise one can see nothing wrong in the arbitrator ha