DALIP SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS misc. appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed against the judgment dated 7.11.1970 of the learned District Judge, Kota in Civil Misc. Case No. 157/1967 by which the application submitted under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award dated 3.11.1967 filed by the State of Rajasthan has been dismissed.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that the respondent -Company entered into a contract with the appellant -State for construction of the Rana Pratap Sagar Dam at Rawatbhata in District Chhitorgarh in Rajasthan. The work of the Dam was completed on or about 31.12.1966. However, there were certain disputes which came to be referred to the sole Arbitrator under the orders of the Hon'ble Governor of the State of Rajasthan dated 25.8.1964. The respondent -Company filed as many as 26 claims before the learned Arbitrator and the State of Rajasthan submitted their reply to the claims before the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator gave his award on 3.11.1967 in all the 26 claims and the Arbitrator filed the award before the court of the District Judge, Kota on 12.11.1967. The Court issued notices and on receipt of the notices, the appellant -State filed their objections on 13.12.1967 to the award. The respondents filed their reply to the aforesaid objections.
(3.) THE learned District Judge on the receipt of the aforesaid objections and their reply framed the following issues: 1. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction? 2. Whether the objections raised by the State are not maintainable under the provisions of Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940? 3. Whether the Arbitrator was bound to give 26 separate awards and therefore the award is invalid? 4. Whether the Arbitrator has misconducted himself in not deciding all the points raised for determination? 5. Whether the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to make the award or part thereof in respect of washing of stones, screening of sand etc., wherein, in view of Clause 25 of the agreement, the decision of the Chief Engineer was allegedly final? ' 6. Whether the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award interest pendente lite and future? 7. Whether there was no valid and complete contract between the parties? If not, whether it has been validly rectified? 8. If issue No. 7 is decided against the petitioner, whether the reference to the Arbitrator was still valid? 9. Relief? ;