An arbitrator's lump sum award is valid and not subject to review unless an objection to its legality is apparent on its face.

B. N. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under S. 39 (1) (vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment dt. 4-10-82 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh in O. S. No. 18 of 1982 (Arbitration ).

( 2 ) THE respondent is a contractor. Appellant No. 3 had entrusted him with the execution of "construction of Panipoila MIP" under agreement No. 187-F-2 of 1971-72. Disputes arose between the parties and as appellant No. 2 failed to appoint an arbitrator as per Cl. 23 of the agreement, the respondent moved the court for appointment of an arbitrator under S. 8 (2) of the Act. The application was registered as Misc. Case No. 8 of 1980 and after hearing the parties the learned Subordinate Judge by order dt. 18-11-80 read with order dt. 15-12-80 appointed Shri Prafulla Chandra De, Retired District and Sessions Judge, as the Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties. The respondent filed a statement of claims and the appellants filed counter before the learned Arbitrator who heard the parties and finally on 15-5-82 made an award of Rs. 19,57,775/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Fiftyseven Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventyfive only) in favour of the respondent. The learned Arbitrator further directed that the respondent was entitled to receive interest on the awarded amount from 1-11-72 till the date of final payment or decree whichever was earlier. The award was received by the court on 22-6-82 and registered as O. S. No. 18 of 1982 (Arbitration ). The appellants filed objection against the award under Ss. 30 and 33 of the Act and it was registered as Misc. Case No. 32 of 1982. By his judgment dt. 4-10-82, the learned Subordinate Judge overruled the objection of the appellants, upheld the award and granted interest to the respondent at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till final payment.

( 3 ) ON going through the award, I find that the learned Arbitrator has given a lump sum award and has not given any reasons for his decision. In AIR 1967 SC 1030 (Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd. , Indore) it was held :". . . . . THE arbitrator could give a lump sum award. He was not bound to give a separate award for each claim. His award on both fact and law is final. There is no appeal from his verdict. The Court cannot review his award and correct any mistake in his adjudication, unless an objection to the legality of the award is apparent on the face of it. In Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. , 50 Ind App 324, the Privy Council stated : 'an error in law on the face of the award means, in their Lordships view, that you can find in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto, as for instance a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his judgment, some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which you can then say is erroneous. ' in the present case, the arbitrator gave no reason for the award. We do not find in the award any legal proposition which is the basis of the award, for less a legal proposition which is erroneous. It is not possible to say from the award that the arbitrator was under a misconception of law. The contention that there are errors of law on the face of the award is rejected. "in AIR 1971 SC 696 (Allen Berry and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India) the Supreme Court held (Para 9) :". . . . . THE rule thus is that as the parties choose their own arbitrator to be the Judge in the dispute between them, they cannot, when the award is good on the face of it, object to the decision either upon the law or the facts. Therefore, even when an arbitrator commits a mistake either in law or in fact in determining the matters referred to him, but such mistake does not appear on the face of the award or in a document appended to or incorporated in it so as to form part of it, the award will neither be remitted nor set aside notwithstanding the mistake. "in (1979) 47 Cu