Ramaswami, J.- This Civil Miscellaneous appeal is against the dismissal of a petition to set aside an award under section 30 of the Arbitration Act. The appellant before us had entered into a contract with the President of India for collecting, conveying and delivering parcels, etc., from or to Madras Central Railway Station Goods Shed and other places. Clause 22 of the contract provided that all matters in dispute between the parties shall be referred to arbitration as mentioned therein. The contract was terminated by the Union of India at a particular stage. The dispute between the parties related to amounts due to the appellant before us in respect of work already done and the claim of damages that he made on the ground that his contract had been wrongfully terminated by the Union of India. Admittedly, these matters were referred to arbitration, and the Arbitrator gave his award dated 14th August, 1961. In that award, the Arbitrator said that the appellant is entitled to monies at a particular rate regarding certain bundles that he handled and at a different rate in respect of certain other articles that he handled and further held that the appellant was not entitled to any damages on the ground of termination of the contract. He also found that the security deposit made by the appellant with the Union of India shall be refunded to him. However, he did not allow any interest for the amounts awarded to the appellant in respect of work which he had already done. The Arbitrator filed the award in Court (City Civil Court, Madras) and his petition came to be registered as a suit. On notice being given to the respective parties of the filing of the award in Court, the appellant filed O.P. No. 2 of 1962 on the file of that Court under section 30 of the Arbitration Act praying for the setting aside of the award on several grounds. The Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissed the petition holding that there were no grounds to set aside the award and granted a decree in favour of the appellant in terms of the award. Not satisfied with that, the appellant has filed the present civil miscellaneou appeal.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Arbitrator has misconstrued the terms of the contract in fixing the rate in respect of the packages handled by the appellant and that amounted to legal misconduct as contemplated under section 30 (a) of the Arbitration Act. The second argument of the learned Counsel is that the Arbitrator had failed to decide certain questions that had been referred to him and that, therefore, the award is invalid and liable to be set aside. After hearing the learned Counsel, we are satisfied that neither of the grounds urged by the learned Counsel is available to him. The Arbitrator has not given any reasons in his award in coming to the conclusion regarding the rate at which the appellant is entitled to claim in respect of packages handled by him. Therefore, there is absolutely no force in the contention that the finding of the Arbitrator regarding the rate is an en or of law on the face of the record. We do not see any force in the contention of the learned Counsel that the Arbitrator has really made out a new contract for the parties and that the finding of the Arbitrator regarding the rate cannot be supported on the terms of the contract. Though it appears that the appellant had urged before the lower Court that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself, such an argument is not put forward before us. The only contention as far as this point is concerned is that there is legal misconduct, in that the Arbitrator misconducted the proceedings. Unless the appellant is in a position to show that there is any error of law on the face of the award or any document attached to the award, he cannot succeed in establishing that there is error of law on the face of the record resulting in legal misconduct. Therefore, on the first point raised the appellant should fail.

3. The second poin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document