MEHTA, J. - (1.) IN these appeals, the common question arise. Hence they are heard and decided together. The trial Court has passed a decree in terms of the award and allowed interest on the amounts of award at 11% from 1-7-1987 to 12-5-1990 and at the rate of 18% from 15-8-1991 till realisation. The particulars regarding different awards passed in different civil suits are as follows:- JUDGEMENT_125_AIR(GUJ)_1996Html1.htm
(2.) THE learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the award has been made admittedly beyond the time limit to make the award which expired on 31-3-199l and the award came to be passed on 15-7-199l. By a Court order dated 11-8-1989, a retired Chief Engineer was appointed the arbitrator to decide the dispute and was further directed to submit his award within four months or within such time as may be extended by the Court. It appears that by a letter of 12-3-1991, the Court had informed the arbitrator that the matter was old and the award was required to be made and the arbitrator was directed to make the award on or before 1-4-1991. It appears that the arbitrator had written a letter in reply to the Court letter that the time be extended by a further period of one month from 1-4-1991. However, on that application, no order was passed.
(3.) CONTENDING that the arbitrator had become functus officio and had no jurisdiction to hold the hearing on 18-6-1991, the Government through the Executive Engineer made an application Ex. 30 on 17-6-1991 and prayed for stay of further proceedings pending before the arbitrator on the ground that the time for making the award had already expired and the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to hold and continue the arbitration proceedings and to pass any award and submitted that the insistence of the arbitrator to hold the proceedings was a misconduct of the arbitrator.;