Ajoy Nath Roy, P.K.Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) There are two appeals before us, one from a judgment and order refusing to set aside an award, and another from the decree passed after such refusal. Although an appeal from the decree itself does not lie and is wholly unnecessary, we propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common judgement and order
(2.) At the outset we make it clear that we are in full agreement with the conclusions reached by the Hon'ble Mr Justice Ronojit Kumar Mitra and we are of the opinion that the award passed should not be set aside and decree thereupon should also remain untouched. The award was passed by the Hon'ble Mr Monoranjan Mallick, after his Lordship retired from the Judgeship of this Court
(3.) The award sets out the different heads of claim and counterclaim put forward on be half of the constructing contractor and the port authorities. Thereafter the award proceeds to grant a lumpsum award of Rs 13 lac in fa vour of the contractor and another lumpsum of Rs 1 lakh in favour of the Port authorities In the result the principal sum awarded in favour of the contractor logically comes to Rs.12 lac. The heads under which this sum of Rs. 12 lac has been awarded are not exactly ascer-tainable from the award itsrlf. The position is the same with regard to the award of Rs. 1 lakh. Retired Justice Mallick has also awarded interest from 1984 and interest runs as per the award and the decree until payment should be completed by the Port authorities.;