- (1.) This is an application by the State of West Bengal challenging an award made by the Chief Engineer, Agricultural as the sole Arbitrator. It appears that the respondent had submitted a tender and the contract was entered into between the respondent and the petitioner for certain works in connection with Kangsabati Project. The respondent claimed different sums of money on account of 10 different heads. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that under Clause 3(c) of the agreement between the parties the respondent had committee breach of the agreement and had failed to perform its part of the agreement and was liable for penalty. In the claim before the Arbitrator, the respondent claimed a total sum of Rs. 3,85,000/-on 10 different heads including a claim of Rs. 30,000/- for alleged damages suffered by them. The petitioner sought to impose penalty on the respondent which the respondent described as wrongful claim by the State of West Bengal. The Petitioner filed its counter statement denying the claim made by the respondent and also insisted on the right to impose penalty. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties as is recorded in the award awarded as follows : "I have heard the oral arguments of the claimants the respondents and considered the documentary evidence adduced by both the parties as well as the documents requisitioned by me. I, Shri D.M. Mukherjee, Chief Engineer (Agri.), West Bengal and Sole Arbitrator of the disputes, do hereby decide, direct and award as follows : (1) The State of West Bengal represented by the Executive Engineer, Kangsabati Canals Division-II, Irrigation & Waterways Directorate shall pay to the claimant M/s. Skabco (Pvt.) Ltd, a sum of Rs. 1,05,642/- (Rupees on lakh, five thousand, six hundred & forty-two) only involved in all the ten disputes mentioned in the claimants' statement. (2) The amounts of security deposite, that is, Rs. 14,785/- (Rupees fourteen thousand, seven hundred & eighty-five) only recovered from the Running Account Bills of claimants and Rs. 14,230/- (Rupees fourteen thousand two hundred and thirty) only deposited by the claimants in the form of N. D. Certificates shall be refunded in full. (3) The State of West Bengal shall not pay any interest to the claimant. (4) No cost of arbitration shall be payable to the claimant be the Respondent (The State of West Bengal). The State of West Bengal represented by the Executive Engineer, Kangsabati Canals Division-II of Irrigation & Waterways Directorate shall pay to the following staff of my office, the amounts written against each towards remuneration for the assistance they have rendered in conducting the entire arbitration proceedings. These amounts represent arbitration cost within the meaning of Article 8 of Schedule II to the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(CAL)5_1977_1.html (5) This award shall not in any way prejudice the refund to and recoveries from the claimants as recorded at pages 121 and 122 of M.B. No. 748 and/or elsewhere as admissible in terms of the provision of the contract and are outside the purview of the present arbitration. (6) Save as aforesaid in respect of the matters before me no party shall have any claim whatsoever against the other".
(2.) The award is being challenged on the ground that the Arbitrator had failed to decide specifically whether the petitioner, State of West Bengal, was entitled to recover damages or impose penalty under Clause 3(c) of the contract. It is contended that unless this point had been decided the Arbitrator's award was incomplete and it could not be said that the Arbitrator had accepted that position or not. I am, however, unable to accept this contention. An Arbitrator is not required to deal with each issue unless he is specifically required either by the order of reference or the circumstances of the case to do so. Furthermore, an award should also be looked upon with a view to sustain the award, if possible. The Arbitrator is not required to give an award on each point. He can make an award on the whole case. See in this connection the observations of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sm. Santi Sila Devi & anr. v. Dhirendra Nath Sen & ors., AIR 1963 SC 1677, Madanlal Roshanlal v. Hukumchand Mills, AIR 1967 SC 1030 and Union of India v. J. N. Misra ; AIR 1970 SC 753. The observations in Russel on Arbitration (15Ed) at p. 211 upon which the learned Advocate for the petitioner relied, in my opinion, have no application in the facts of the case. Reliance was also placed on certain observations in the case of Union of India v. I. P. Sharma & Sons, AIR 1968 Rajasthan 99. It is undoubtedly true that it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case whether the issues are distinct or separate and whether the decision on one issue is necessary or essential for adjudication of the matters referred to. In that case it was found that the real dispute between the parties that was referred to the arbitrator was about the applicability of correct rate for the job done by the Contractor. It was not that the parties only wanted the Arbitrator to determine what sum was payable by one to the other. Indeed, there was no serious dispute about that. The facts and circumstances of the instant case, in my opinion, are different. Here the Contractor had made certain claims on different heads. The Arbitrator has gone into those claims. The Government has also insisted on the right to impose penalty. The Contractor had made a claim for damages on the petitioner's assertion to impose penalty. The petitioner had not made any counter claim of any specific amount on the basis of imposition of penalty. In these circumstances, if the arbitrator has awarded in respect of these different claims a sum of money less than that claimed by the Contractor and has specifically observed that in respect of all matters referred to him the parties would have no further claim, in my opinion, it must be held that the Arbitrator must have decided all the disputes, viz. the disputes referred to him. It is not necessary for him to specifically deal with different heads of the claim. In the facts and circumstances of this case I do not find that it was necessary for the Arbitrator to determine specifically and separately whether the Government, the petitioner, had any right to impose penalty as claimed by the Government. In the aforesaid view of the matter I am unable to sustain the challenge to the award. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the petitioner on the case of Union of India v. Ramesh Kr. Rajgharia, AIR 1974 Cal. 345 for the proposition that even if the award recited that the arbitrator had looked into all the papers the Court was free to examine whether in fact the statement contained in the recital was correct or not. That principle, in my opinion, has no application to the facts of the instant case.
(3.) In the aforesaid view of the matter, this application fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.;