RAY - (1.) THE above four appeals on special leave by the appellant were filed against the judgment and order dated 7/02/1983 made by the Panaji Bench of the Bombay High Court in First Civil Appeals Nos. 35/B to 38/ B of 1981 (reported in AIR 1984 Bom 120) disposing of all the four appeals filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, Goa dated 26-8-1981 confirming four different awards by an arbitrator appointed in pursuance to the agreement between the parties. Appeal No. 35 of 1981 relates to the award, awarding to the respondent against the appellant Rs. 2,75,091.13. Appeal No. 36 of 1981 relates to an award, awarding to the respondent a sum of Rs. 1,88,968.36. Appeal No. 37 of 1981 relates to an award, awarding to the respondent Rs. 3,36,230.36 and Appeal No. 38 of 1981 relates to an award, awarding to the respondent Rs. 46,321.32.
(2.) THE facts leading to these appeals are as follows: THE appellant Goa, Daman & Diu Housing Board entered into two contracts on 15-3-72, and one contract each on 11-7-73 and 4-7-73 with the respondent for the construction of tenements at Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. THE appellant accepted two tenders of the respondent. on 9-3-72 and remaining two on 24-2-73. THEre was a time limit in all the aforesaid four contracts for the completion of the work referred to therein. Several extensions were granted to the respondent for completing the work but the respondent failed to complete the construction work undertaken by him under the said four contracts. On 1/07/1975 the appellant issued a notice to the respondent underclause 3 of the said contract for exercising the right of termination in view of the fact that the respondent was unable to fulfil the contractual obligation of completing the construction work in spite of the various extensions granted to the respondent. On 14/07/1975, the Engineer-in-Charge of the appellant Board exercised its unilateral right of terminating the contract under clause 3 of the agreement in view of the fact that the respondent did hot complete the work of construction undertaken by him in spite of various extensions granted to him. On 31/07/1975, the Chairman of the appellant board confirmed that all the four contracts stood rescinded. On 17/05/1976, the respondent served a notice to the appellant on the ground that the appellant had rescinded the work contracts. THE respondent stated therein various reasons why the work could not be completed. THEreafter in April, 1978, the appellant filed a suit claiming damages for a sum of Rs. 4,38,786.96 with interest against the respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, Goa, Subsequently , an application was filed by the respondent under section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the suit. Respondent also made another application to the Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for directing the Housing Board to file the arbitration agreement in Court and in pursuance of clause 25 of the agreement to appoint an arbitrator. Accordingly, the Court by its order dated 28-2-1979 had the agreement between the parties filed in court and directed the Housing Board to appoint an arbitrator. On 25/03/1979 Shri J. S. Pinto, retired Superintending Engineer was appointed as Arbitrator. The Arbitrator on 23/03/1981 submitted four awards granting the claims of the respondent as stated hereinbefore on the basis that the appellant was responsible for the slow progress and non-completion of work and the work could not be completed as the contract was terminated by the appellant, the Housing Board. The said award was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, by the Arbitrator on 31/03/1981 for making the award Rule of the Court. The appellant submitted his objections for setting aside the awards on 27/04/1981 on the grounds inter alia that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself by not framing the main issue i.e. whether or not the claimant abandoned the work and thereby committed breach of the agreement. The Arbitrator misconducted himself by ignoring the letter of termination wherein it was clearly stated that the termination has been done on account of the abandonment of the work by the claimants; the learned Arbitrator failed to decide upon the question of the abandonment of work and has wholly side tracked the issue; the learned Arbitrator misconducted himself by not giving reasons for the award as required under the agreement under which he was appointed.
(3.) THE learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji by his Order dated 26/08/1981 rejected all the objections raised on behalf of the appellant against the said awards and confirmed the same. All the four impugned awards have been made Rule of the Court.;