- (1.) Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to claim no.4 of the Arbitration Award and has submitted that no detailed reasons have been given by the Arbitrator despite the fact that at the time of remanding the case, it was specifically directed to the arbitrator to give the detailed reasons.
(2.) Perusal of the award passed by the arbitrator shows that complete reasoning has been given while deciding the claim no.4, which reads as under:- "Under this claim, the contractor had claimed an amount of Rs.35,506 /- on account of less payment made for plinth beam but the contractor was granted Rs.30,000/- as reasonable amount but the ld. Court has held this grant as legally not tenable being contrary to conditions 33(4) and 28 of the contract agreement and being against law. However, the ld. Counsel for the contractor has argued that this clause, as it is, is a void provision being extremely vague and uncertain I terms of sections of the India Contract Act as it talks of reduced profitability but without spelling out the situation/reason which would cause this reduced profitability. The ld. Counsel further argued that in fact under condition 28, deptt. Can make payment even at reduced rate and prohibit the claimant from raising any claim on the plea that reduced payment at reduced rate had only resulted in reduced profitability and hence no claim can be raised on this account and that a rational interpretation of this condition is possible only when it is red in continuation or conjunction with condition 26 which confers power on the engineer in Chief for rescinding the contract in certain situations and has relied upon U.P.State Electricity Board Lucknow Vs.M/s Om Metals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Kota, 1995 AIR(All) 246. I have gone through this authority but its perusal shows that the facts of this authority are distinguishable. So in view of condition 28 of the contract agreement between the parties, the claim is disallowed. It will be an exercise in futility to give reasons for granting less amount as required under condition 33(4) of the contract agreement as ultimately in view of condition 28, this claim has to be disallowed."
(3.) Otherwise also perusal of the award shows that it has been passed by giving detailed reasons. Once the award has been passed within four corners of law, mathematical scrutiny of every action of the arbitrator cannot be permitted in this appeal. Dismissed.;