An arbitrator acting in contravention of the clear, obvious, or patent terms of the main contract, which deals with the rights and obligations of the parties, would be acting without jurisdiction and the award would be liable to be set aside under the Arbitration Act.

Jagannadha Rao, C.J. - This reference to Full Bench made on 27.2.1989 appears to us to be largely covered by the recept judgment of the Supreme Court in Associated Engineering Co. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ((1991) 4 SCC 93) dealing with non-speaking awards of arbitration. The referring order of the Division Bench to the Full Bench reads thus in its concluding paragraph :

"The view of the decisions in State of Kerala v. Poulose (1988 (1) KLT 541) and State of Kerala v. Poulose (1987 (1) KLT 781) which state that even non-speaking awards are liable to be set aside if the award is contrary so the basic features of the contract or traverses beyond its terms, which are contrary to the views expressed by the various Supreme Court decisions including the latest pronouncement in Jawaharlal Wadhawa v. Haripada Chakraborty (1989 (1) SCC 76), we are of the opinion that the matter requires consideration by a Full Bench of this court".

2. The facts of the case are as follows. The respondent, V. P. Jolly, was a contractor for contain road works and he entered into an agreement with the Government on 19.12.1977 and the works were to be completed in 15 months. He contended that there was delay on the part of the Government in handing over the site, supplying cement and iron etc. that there were rains, floods etc. which delayed completion. The defence statement of the Government to the claim statement filed by the contractor before the Arbitrator reveals that time was extended for completion of the work upto 31.12.1982 and that for that purpose a supplemental agreement was executed between the parties in which the contractor agreed not to claim compensation for the extra work or expenditure and not to claim higher rates for labour, material etc. The said supplemental agreement stipulated that payment would be according to the terms and conditions in the original agreement the only benefit being extension of time. Nonetheless, the contractor raised a dispute referring the claims as claims (a) to (n) in his claim statement dated 6.12.1982 claiming extra compensation and higher rates. This was stoutly refuted in paras 3, 6 and 10 of the defence statement and counter claim of May 1983 which specifically referred to the terms of the supplemental agreement not to claim extra. After several adjustments, the hearing of the case took place, as disclosed from the Arbitrator's record, only on 27.7.1983 (see pages 215-216 of record). The notes of the arbitrator show that the claimant raised five issues and the Department is recorded as have referred to 'Supplemental agreement', on the same date, 27.7.1983. He did not even care to look into the objections and call for the supplemental agreement. The Arbitrator, Sri K. C. George, Chief Engineer (Arbitration), however, passed a non-speaking award awarding various sums under claims (a), (b), (c), (e), (g), (n), amounting to Rs. 2,30,000 and he rejected claims (d), (f), (i), (m) and (n). On claims (i), (k) and (l), he directed the Government to pay the final bill as per his award. Certain other incidental directions were also given. The appellant moved the court in September, 1983 for writing aside the award as being "against the terms and conditions of the agreement" and contending that there is no justification for awarding compensation and damages, that the "Arbitrator misconducted himself in passing the award without any basis and in ignoring the evidence in the case" and that the Arbitrator "failed to carry out strictly the mandates of Agreement".

3. The learned subordinate Judges in his judgment dated 18.11.1983 in the O.P. (Arb) 201 of 1983 rejected the appellants objections on ground that the award was a non speaking award, that there was no error apparent on the face of the award, and that as far as the plea of misconduct is concerned "nothing is pointed out, to indicate that this is true". A decree was passed in terms of the award. The appellants appealed to this court and contended th