Both these appeals arise out of two separate contracts and involve common questions of facts and law. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 114 of 1999 (R) arises out of the contract dated 31.10.1988/2.11.1988, entered into between the parties for construction of roads, drains and culverts at 400/220 K.V. Jamshedpur Sub Station of the appellant ( subject matter of Title Suit no. 8 of 1990).

3. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 52 of 1998 (R) arises out of the contract dated 31.10.1988/2.11.1988 for construction of boundary wall and switchyard fencing at 400/220 KV Jamshedpur Sub Station of the appellant ( subject matter of Title Suit no. 7 of 1990).

4. In course of performance of the said contracts, certain disputes and differences arose between the parties. In view of arbitration agreement contained in clause 56, the respondent-contractor made an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ( the Act for short) before the learned Sub Judge, Saraikella. By order dated 24.4.1992, Mr. Manohar Sahay, retired General Manager of the appellant, was appointed as sole arbitrator with the consent of the parties. The parties submitted their pleadings, documentary and oral evidence and advanced their oral and written submissions before the arbitrator. After hearing the parties, the Arbitrator made the two Awards in question both dated 29.4.1996. In the Award in question in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 114 of 1999, against a claim of Rs.18,74,600.00, an amount of Rs.7,70, 000.00 was awarded.

In the Award in question in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 52 of 1998 ( R), against a claim of Rs.22,62,884.00, the arbitrator awarded Rs.7,97,974.00.

The counter claims of the appellant were rejected. In both the awards, pendent elite simple interest @ 10% per annum on the said amount was awarded from the date of first sitting i.e. 19.8.1992 till the dates of the Awards and if the said amount plus interest aforesaid was not paid within 30 days, the awarded amount together with interest was to carry further simple interest @ 10% per annum till the date of satisfaction of the Award or date of decree following judgment upon the Award, whichever was earlier.

5. The appellant filed objections to the awards, under Sections 15, 16 and 30 of the Act. After hearing the parties, learned Sub Judges rejected the objections, made the Award rule of the Court; and decreed the suit. The Award was to form part of the decree. It may be noted here that in both the suits, the impugned orders were passed by two different Subordinate Judges.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following oral and written submissions:-“ To sum up it is submitted that the Award as well as the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law on the following grounds.

(i) The Award does not disclose any reason, considerations or “Findings”.

(ii) The Arbitrator while rejecting the claims has over looked the relevant terms & conditions of the contract as well as special condition of the contract entered between the parties.

(iii) Despite of submission of numerous documents, letters and facts, the Arbitrator has failed to consider any of these documents while passing the Award.

(iv) The learned trial court has also erred in not considering the legality, propriety and validity of the Award on the touch stone of “misconduct” as envisaged u/s 30 of the Act and also other provisions of the 1940 Act.

(v) By awarding a claim though lesser than claimed cannot waive the reasons, considerations or findings at least in preliminary manner by the Arbitrator in its Award”.

7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent supported the Award as well as the impugned judgments.

8. After hearing the parties, going through the records carefully, and keeping in view the legal position, in my opinion, no grounds are made out for interfering with the awards and the impugned orders in question, for the following reasons.

9. The only quest