G.B. Patnaik, J. - (1.)THE claimant -contractor is the Appellant against the order of the Subordinate Judge setting aside an award of the arbitrator and dismissing the claimant 's application to make the award a rule of Court.
(2.)THE Appellant -contractor entered into an agreement with the Chief Engineer, Dry Dock. 9,1. R. S. D. Area, Visakhapatanam, for construction of a twenty -bedded hospital and mess at Chilka by agreement No. CEDD/Chilka/3 of 1977 -78. Disputes having arisen between the parties regarding execution of the contract, the same was referred to the sole arbitration of Shri B. K. Patra, a retired Judge of the Orissa High Court, who has in the meantime expired. The arbitrator considering the materials before him passed the award for a sum of Rs. 8,01.126.81 paise in favour of the claimant -contractor. The award was received in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on 2.1 -1984 and on receipt of the notice from the Court, objection was filed on behalf of the Union of India under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. The objection in question was registered as Misc. Case No. 43 of 1984. The claimant -contractor, however, prayed for making the award a rule of Court. Both the application and the objection were disposed of by the impugned judgment by which the Subordinate Judge has set aside the award in question.
The validity of the a ward was challenged in the objection filed on behalf of the Respondents, inter alia, on the grounds that:

(a) the arbitrator tampered with the records and manipulated the order sheets dated 25 -11 -1983 10 -12 -1983 and 22 -12 -1983 and thereby misconducted the proceedings;

(b) the arbitrator signed the award after he was asked to stay his hands by the High Court;

(c) the arbitrator on being appointed as Lokpal and having taken oath as Lokpal on 17 -11 -1983 automatically ceased to continue as arbitrator;

(d) notwithstanding the prayer of the Respondents on 24 -12 -1983 requesting the arbitrator to stay his hands since the matter was being challenged in the High Court, the arbitrator purposely passed the award with undue haste which vitiates the award;

(e) the arbitrator did not apply his mind while allowing different claims of the contractor;

(f) the arbitrator did not file the award as required under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act and Rules 3 and 13 of the Arbitration Rules;

(g) the award being for more than Rs. 50,000/ - the arbitrator was bound to pass a reasoned award as per the terms of the contract and the arbitrator not having given any reasons, the award is invalid; and (h) the term of the arbitrator expired on 27 -8 -1983 and thereafter he ceased to be an arbitrator and the award passed by the arbitrator after about four months of the date of expiry of the term is without jurisdiction.

(3.)BEFORE the Subordinate Judge on behalf of the claimant -Contractor, an objection had been raised to the effect that the Respondents not having filed the objection within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice, the objection cannot be considered and must be rejected in limine. The Respondents, it appears, had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. From the order of the Subordinate Judge, it further appears that the Respondents appeared in Court an 4; -1 -1984 and were allowed time till 2 -2 -1984 to file objection. On 2 -2 -1981, they were again allowed time till 5 -3 -1984, but they filed the objection an 24 -2..1984. Relying upon the decision of the Court in, the case of Gangaram Chhapolia v. Chief Engineer, Orissa and Ors., A.I.R. 1982 Ori 262, the learned, Subordinate Judge condoned the delay in filing the objection and Mr. Palit appearing for the claimant -contractor does not challenge the said conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge.