- (1.) The appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the A. P. High court wherein it was held that the award in favour of the appellant before us had become invalid and void in toto. This was because it was a lump sum award in respect of the Claim Nos. 1 to 12 and, therefore, was an award in respect of Claim No. 9, which had been given up by the appellant before the arbitrator, and Claim No. 11, in respect of which the High court held that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction. The High court set aside the award, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant and allowed the civil revision application filed by the respondents.
(2.) The appellant had made 14 claims before the Arbitrator. The appellant did not press Claim No. 9, which was for the sum of rs. 8,514/- (sic). However, in respect of claim Nos. 1 to 12 the Arbitrator awarded the aggregate sum of Rs. 19,76,000. 00. He gave no reasons for doing so nor did he give a break up of the amounts awarded against individual claims. He disallowed Claim No. 19 in its entirety and on Claim No. 14 for interest, he awarded it at the rate of 12% per annum.
(3.) In the judgment under appeal the High court observed: "Such need for reasons is acutely felt in this case for the reason that though the appellant did not assail the correctness of the award in respect of Claim Nos. 1 to 8, 10 and 12, in view of the award being a non-reasoned one, we are precluded to probe into the mental 158 process of the arbitrator to judge as to what extent his award is severable and the respondent is deprived of the benefit of the rest of the claims. ";