- (1.) In Civil Nos. 4778-79 of 1984 this court on 21/11/1984. directed the disputes to be referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. Sudhamoy Basu, a retired Judge of the calcutta High court. Pursuant to the directions contained in that order Mr. Basu has now filed his award. The claimant-respondent in the appeals has asked the awards to be made rule of the court and the appellant. Union of india, has asked for setting aside of the same.
(2.) Two grounds have been raised in support of the stand that the awards should be set aside:- (1) Clause 25 of the Agreement containing the arbitration clause provided "it is also a term of this contract that no person other than a person appointed by such chief Engineer or administrative head of the C. P. W. D. , as aforesaid should act as arbitrator and if for any reason, that is not possible, the matter is not to be referred to arbitration at all. In all cases where the amount of the claim in dispute is Rs. 50,000. 00 (Rupees fifty thousand) and above, the arbitrator shall give reason for the award. " (2) There was a counter claim for Rs. 26.80 lakhs but the award is silent about the same.
(3.) From the extracted part of clause 25 it is clear that the sole arbitrator should be the nominee of the Chief engineer or the administrative head of the C. P. W. D. and if such nominee was not the arbitrator, no arbitration was to take place. Appointment made by this court by order dated 21/11/1984, of a person other than a nominee of Chief Engineer or the administrative head as contemplated in clause 25 was obviously not within the purview of the clause. We are of the view that when a retired Judge of the Calcutta High court was appointed as the sole arbitrator, the provisions of clause 25 were not intended to comply. The order made by this court also did not indicate that the sole arbitrator was to give reasons in support of his awards.;