SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) Of these three appeals, two are directed against a judgment and order of January 4, 2017 passed on the State's challenge to an arbitral award of August 26, 2011. The third matter pertains to an order passed on the State's application for a stay of the operation of the award so that the same was not enforced till the conclusion of the State's continuing challenge to the award.
(2.) The third matter - the appeal from the order passed in the execution proceedings - is rendered irrelevant in the context of the decision on the two principal appeals as made herein.
(3.) On the State's challenge to the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the amounts awarded by the arbitrator under the second and fourth heads out of the ten heads of claim were set aside on the ground that no reasons had been furnished in allowing such heads of claim, whether in part or in full. The amounts awarded under the ninth and tenth heads of claim by the arbitrator were also annulled by the judgment and order impugned, on the ground that such two heads of claim overlapped. APO 398 of 2017 is the State's attempt to have the entirety of the award set aside on the ground that no reasons were furnished in making the award and the award betrays a complete non-application of mind and the total absence of any adjudication. APO 419 of 2017 is the contractor's appeal, questioning the propriety of the judgment and order of January 4, 2017 tinkering with the award and setting aside the amounts awarded under four heads of claim.;