An arbitrator is not bound to give reasons for his awards unless the arbitration agreement or the order of the court appointing the arbitrator requires him to do so. A non-speaking award is not an error apparent on the face of the award.

RANGASAMY, J.

These petitions O.Ps. 40, 47 and 62/94 have been filed under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the awards. The averments in all these petitions are common except the number of agreement and the value of the work

2. The petitioners Tamil Nadu Housing Board entrusted the constructions work with the second respondent contractor and for the agreement bearing No. WBR/51-90-91 dated 19-3-1991, the value of the contract given to the second respondent was Rs. 55, 41, 702/- and the work had to be completed within 12 months from the date of handing over the site. O.P. No. 40/94 relates to this work

3. O.P. No. 47 of 1994 relates to the contract work under the agreement No. WBCR/60/90-91 dated 23.2.1991 and the value of the work covered under this agreement was Rs. 10.74 lakhs. The period of contract was 4 months from the date of handing over the site

4. O.P. No. 62 of 1994 relates to the agreement No. 11/89-90 dated 28-6-1989 and the value of the covered under the contract was Rs. 40, 37, 881.85 and the period of contract was 10 months from the date of handing over the site

5. As the work were not completed within the contractual period, the contracts were terminated and therefore on the request of the second respondent contractor, arbitrator was appointed under the orders of this court, to decide the dispute between them. The arbitrator has passed the awards allowing the claim of the second respondent contractor to certain extent only. In O.P. No. 40/94, the arbitrator has awarded Rs. 5, 26, 530/- whereas in the other 2 matters, the amount awarded to the second respondent is Rs. 5, 18, 854/- and Rupees 1, 53, 355/- respectively. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has filed these petitions under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the awards

6. The averments in the petitions are as follows

As the second respondent contractor did not complete the work within the stipulated period, the contracts were terminated. The arbitrator has not found whether the contractor has committed the breach of contract, which is the very core of the arbitration proceedings and the arbitrator ought to have held that the termination order passed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was legal and valid one. The delay in carrying out the work is purely due to the negligence of the second respondent contractor. But in spite of that, he has been awarded 10% of the profit on the balance work, which is totally unsustainable in law and directing the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to pay for the incomplete work is a total bias on the part of the arbitrator. The arbitrator has not given any reasons for his conclusion and the documents also have not been considered in his awards. When once the arbitrator relies upon the documents filed by the second respondent, he ought to have given weight to the records and referred to in his awards and this will amount to error of law on the face of it and therefore, the award is liable to be set aside. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board supplied the materials to the second respondent contractor within time and in spite of that he has not completed the work and the Tamil Nadu Housing Boards claim for the cost of the materials has been rejected without giving valid reasons. The Arbitrator's award at 16% interest is against the principles of law and the rate of interest allowed also is very much high. Therefore, the awards filed by the arbitrator in the 3 Original Petitions have to be set aside

7. The 2nd respondent contractor has filed counter stating that the arbitrator had granted ample opportunity to both sides to present their case and he also made personal inspection of the site and only thereafter, the awards were passed, that the awards can be set aside only if there was error apparent on the face of the awards which is not so in these petitions, and that unreasoned awards are not bad per se unless the agreement or the order of the court was specific to give reasons for the conclusions of the arbit