JUDGMENT :

P.Naveen Rao, J.

Heard learned counsel Sri K.Prabhakar for the appellant and the learned counsel Ms.Pratusha Boppanna appearing for the learned counsel Sri A.Venkatesh for respondent no.1.

2. The appellant in COMCA No. 48 of 2020 and COMCA.No.49 of 2020 is claimant before the learned Arbitrator and petitioner in C.O.P.No.232 of 2017 in the Court of the Judge Commercial Court cum XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent herein is respondent before the learned Arbitrator and petitioner in C.O.P.No.195 of 2017. Parties are referred to as arrayed before the learned Arbitrator.

3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh awarded contract to execute balance of the work of ‘Thotapally Barrage Project EPC Package-1’ to a joint venture comprising of respondent and M/s.Prasad Constructions. The agreement was signed on 31.8.2012. In turn the respondent entrusted the entire work to the claimant with same terms as contained in the agreement dated 31.8.2012 entered with the Government. The agreement was entered into on 10.9.2012 called as ‘work order’. However, the agreement envisaged that out of the bills payable for the works executed by the claimant the respondent is entitled to take 17.5 % towards Royalty.

4. Disputes arose between the parties to the agreement dated 10.9.2012. Alleging that the claimant failed to execute the work within the stipulated time, the respondent issued notice dated 26.5.2015 invoking clause 4 of the ‘work order’ calling upon the claimant to explain within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of notice, as to why contract should not be terminated. The claimant responded vide his reply dated 22.6.2015. Respondent terminated the contract.

5. ‘Work Order’ envisaged resolution of disputes through medium of arbitration. The claimant filed Arbitration Application No. 145 of 2015 before this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act, 1996) seeking to appoint an arbitrator. This Court appointed former Chief Justice of Patna High Court Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy as Arbitrator. The claimant set up 12 claims before the learned Arbitrator. The respondent made a counter-claim of Rs. 6,47,08,361/- with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum.

6. After considering the submissions of both the parties, the learned Arbitrator framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the termination of the work order dated 30.9.2012 by the Respondent is proper and legal?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to amounts claimed in Claims No.1 to 12 of the Claim petition?

7. Upon considering of the pleadings and the documentary evidence placed on record, the Learned Arbitrator held that there was no justification for the respondent to terminate the ‘work order’. The learned Arbitrator allowed Claim Nos.1-A, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 12. Aggrieved by the award, both the parties filed applications under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 before the Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad bearing C.O.P.No. 232 of 2017 and C.O.P.No.195 of 2017. While claimant is aggrieved by the award denying all claims, the respondent is unhappy with the award denying his counter-claim was not considered and also on findings recorded on the issues decided in favour of claimant.

8. The Commercial Court clubbed both the C.O.Ps. After hearing the submissions of both parties, the Commercial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the claimant is entitled for claims which were disallowed by the arbitrator ?

(ii) Whether there is any interference required in the award passed by the arbitrator ? and

(iii) Whether the award passed has to be set aside ?

9. By Common Order dated 1.2.2019 both COPs were disposed of. The Commercial Court observed that the leaned Arbitrator had passed the award without framing any issue with regard to the counter-claim made by the respondent. The Court held that Arbitrator is bound by prudent principles of law to give a