The court affirmed the validity of the arbitrator's award based on the parties' agreements, jurisdiction over disputes, and the authority to award interest, emphasizing that detailed individual findings were not mandatory.

1. These two appeals are directed against the common order, dt. 17th June, 1986 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol whereby he has disposed of Civil Misc. Application No. 231 of 1981 and Civil Misc. Application No. 158 of 1985. By this order, the learned Judge has allowed Civil Misc. Application No. 231 of 1981 (filed by the resent respondent) by accepting the award made by the Sole Arbitrator regarding the disputes between the parties arising from two contracts. Civil Misc. Application No. 158 of 1985 (filed by the appellant), urging that the award may be set aside, has been dismissed by the learned Judge. Thus, it is the composite order overruling the objections against the award and the converting of it into the rule of the Court, which is the subject - matter of these two appeals filed by the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (to be hereinafter referred to as the Board) against M/s. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. (to be hereinafter referred to as the Contractors).

2. One of the contentions taken up by the Board against the acceptance of the award was that it was pronounced beyond limitation period and the Contractors have filed Civil Application No. 1508 of 1987 urging that, if necessary, this Court may grant extension of time to make and publish the award (vide S.28 of the Arbitration Act ). We propose to dispose of both the appeals filed by the Board and also the Civil Application filed by the Contractors by this common judgement.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the two Civil Misc. Applications and then to these appeals may first be set out. By two contracts entered into between the parties, the Contractors undertook to provide fabricating, laying and joining 1000 mm. dia, steel welded pipeline for a distance of 10.1 kms. and 7.4 kms. respectively. The two contracts entered into by the parties were in Standard Form B - 2 of the P.W.D. and they were contracts Nos. B - 2/1 and B - 2/2 of 1978-79. Disputes arose between the parties regarding the execution of the two contracts each side alleging that the other had committed breach of the contracts. The two contracts under which the work was to be carried out contained an arbitration clause being clause No. 30 in each contract. The arbitration clauses in both the contracts were identically worded. This arbitration clause (cl. No. 30) provided that if any disputes enumerated in any of the sub-cls. (i) to (viii) of Cl.30 arose between the parties, the same shall be referred to a Sole Arbitrator. Since disputes did arise between the parties the Contractors filed Civil Misc. Application No. 231 of 1981 under S.8 and S.20 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol for appointment of Arbitrator as per Cl.30 of the Contract and for reference of the disputes to the Arbitrator. Thereupon, the court appointed one Shri G.G. Vaidya as an Arbitrator and, by his interim decision, dated, 5th May, 1982, Shri Vaidya decided that the disputes (claims) mentioned in paras 10(g) to 10(i) of Civil Misc. Application No. 231 of 1981 were not arbitrable as they did not fall within any of the sub-cls. (i) to (viii) of CL 30 of the Contracts whereas the rest of the disputes (claims) were arbitrable. The Board challenged this decision of the Arbitrator Shri Vaidya by filing Special Civil Application No. 2750 of 1982 before this High Court, but this Special Civil Application was dismissed by this Court by its order dt. 16th / 22nd Mar., 1983. The Board then took the matter to the Supreme Court against the said decision of this Court by filing Special Petition (Civil) No. 9610 of 1983. While