JUDGMENT

1. Mr. Kashyuap, learned advocate, Central Government Counsel led by Mr. Parhi, learned advocate and Assistant Solicitor General appear on behalf of appellants (railway). Mr. Kashyuap submits, awards made on several heads of claim bear patent illegality on the face and are opposed to public policy. He draws attention to paragraphs 7 and 8 in the award, where the 10 claims made were tabulated. He submits, challenge against claim nos.2 to 7 and 9 was erroneously rejected by the Court below. His client is, therefore, in appeal.

2. Claim nos.3, 3(A) and 4 relate to termination of the contract by his client and consequences thereof. He submits, clause 62 in General Conditions of Contract (GCC) provide for circumstances, in which there could be determination of contract owing to default of contractor and the consequences. His client duly terminated the contract upon seven days, followed by 48 hours notices. Entry-(vii) under the clause was relied upon to terminate it. Consequences of the termination provide for forfeiture of security deposits as well as encashment of performance guarantee, by subsequent clause in respect thereof. His client having had acted within four corners of