SABYASACHI MUKHARJI -
(1.)THE respondent R. V. Rayanim was, at all material times, a Class I contractor who had entered into an agreement with the Government of Andhra Pradesh for formation of earth dam in gorge portion from chainage 3360 to 3380-M of Raiwada Reservoir Project near Devarapalli village, Chodavaram Taluk, Distt. Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Disputes and differences arose between the parties in respect of the aforesaid agreement. A reference was made to the arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. THE respondent made eleven claims claiming various amounts, particulars whereof have been set out by the arbitrator as follows :
(2.)THE arbitrator gave a non-speaking award dated 27/07/1985 in favour of the respondent, amounting to Rs. 19.39 lakhs, wherein he stated as follows :-
"Claim II has been withdrawn by the petitioner himself on the ground it was subsequently refunded by the respondents. On the balance claims (1 and 111 to X) according to my assessment, I award a consolidated amount of Rs. 19.39 lakhs to the extent of the claims judged admissible. THE respondents shall pay Rs. Ninteen lakhs and thirty nine thousands to the petitioner."
It is, therefore, apparent that claim No. II as mentioned above, had been withdrawn. On the balance claims I and III the arbitrator had awarded a consolidated amount of Rs. 19.39 lakhs 'to the extent of the -claims judged admissible'. The respondent filed a proceeding before the Court to make the award rule of the Court. The petitioner preferred an application for setting aside the award. By a common judgment dated 21/04/1986, the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the petition of the petitioners for setting aside the award and allowed the judgment in terms of the award. The petitioner preferred an appeal and a civil review petition before the High Court of Hyderabad. By a judgment dated 16/03/1988 the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and the revision of the petitioner. It held that the nonspeaking award of the arbitrator was not liable to be set aside by the Court.
(3.)THE petitioner has preferred this special leave petition challenging the said decision of the High Court. THE main contention which was sought to be urged in this case was that the award was a non-speaking award and, as such, was bad. On this ground, on or about 9/12/1988 this Court directed that the matter should be taken up along with civil appeal Nos. 5645 and. 5645A of 1986 pending before a larger bench. At that time, the question was pending consideration by the Constitution Bench of this Court. This Court further directed on 9/12/1988 that the entire amount of award, if not deposited in the trial Court, should be de posited in the trial Court within two months from that date, and upon the deposit being made the respondent will be at liberty to withdraw 50 Per Cent of the amount which has not been withdrawn on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It was further recorded that 50 Per Cent had already been with - drawn.