An arbitrator must adhere strictly to the claim limits set by the referring authority; failure to do so may result in the award being set aside.

1. This is a petition filed under S.30 and S.33 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act Samvat 2002 for setting aside the award dated 29th of January, 1997 passed by the sole arbitrator, Sh. S.K. Rao.

2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under:

3. A contract agreement being CA No. CEUZ - 28 of 1987-88 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent for provision of married accommodation for JCOs / HAVs at Jammu. Disputes having arisen, between the parties, a request for adjudication of the same was made in terms of Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract governing the parties.

4. Acting upon the request of the petitioner - firm, the appointing authority i.e., the Engineer - in - Chief, Army Headquarters, New Delhi vide his letter dated 19.8.1994 appointed Sh. S.K. Rao as the sole arbitrator in the case.

In the letter of appointment, the appointing authority initially mentioned vide Appendix - A to the letter only the claims of the Union of India, which were as under:

CLAIMS OF UNION OF INDIA

5. Since the claims of the contractor were not referred, the same were subsequently referred to the arbitrator for adjudication as Appendix - B to communication dated 5th of May, 1995. As many as 14 claims formed a part of Appendix - B, which were as under:

CLAIMS of M/s Balwant Singh & sons - petitioner / contractor.

6. The arbitrator entered upon the reference and published his final award on 29th of January, 1997 and filed the same in this court.

7. Objections have been filed under S.30 and S.33 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, samvat, 2002 against the award and this court vide order dated 9.4.2003 framed the following three issues:

(i) Whether Arbitrator has mis - conducted himself as well as in the arbitral proceedings?

(ii) whether the award suffers from any error of law and fact apparent on its face. If so, what is the effect?

(iii) Relief.

8. Evidence was filed by way of affidavits by the parties.

9. The award has been questioned an two grounds,

(a) that the award in question was vague and uncertain and, therefore, incapable of execution and

(b) that the arbitrator could not have permitted fresh claims to be entertained beyond the claims and disputes referred by the competent authority, forming Appendix - A to the order of reference by the Chief Engineer concerned.

10. VAGUE AWARD

Mr. R. K. Gupta, Learned counsel for the contractor / objector urged that not only was the award vague and uncertain but it was also contrary to the express terms of arbitration clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract, which was applicable to the contract agreement between the parties.

11. It was stated that while the arbitrator in his award has reflected that claims No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & - 19 had been allowed partially, he had failed to quantify as to the precise amount, which was being allowed by the arbitrator as against each of the claims by the contractor. For example as against claim No. 1 of the contractor / objector, the arbitrator in his award held as under:

11.1.4. - It is an admitted fact that contractor executed certain amount of work after payment of last RAR. I uphold that all the quantum of work executed by the contractor upto the date of cancellation of contract shall be payable to the contractor. The claim is partly sustained and the amount awarded against this claim will be accounted for by me while awarding amount against Claim No. 1 of the Union of India.

12. In regard to claim No. 2 of the contractor, the arbitrator in his award held as under:

11.2.3. - ........I uphold that payment is due to the contractor for the ma