ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Both these appeals being Arbitration Appeal No. 16 of 2014 and Arbitration Appeal No. 17 of 2014 have been filed under section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the common Order and Decree dated 26.07.2014 passed by Shri Ashok Kumar (II) the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-1st, Bermo, Tenughat in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 08/2010 and Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 07/2010, both filed by the Appellant before the said learned Court under section 34 of the said Act challenging therein two different Arbitral Awards both dated 31.03.2010 passed by the same Arbitral Tribunal constituted for arbitration of disputes arising out of the Contract Agreement No. RITES/CE/TENU/92/5 dated 16.11.1992 for execution of balance work of earthwork in formation and construction of Bridges in connection with construction of a B.G. Railway siding from Danea Railway Station to Tenughat Thermal Power Plant (on Gomoh-Barka Khana Section of Eastern Railway) Package V And arising out of the Contract Agreement No. RITES/CE/TENU/92/4 dated 25.09.1992 for execution of balance work of earthwork in formation and construction of Bridges in connection with construction of a B.G. Railway siding from Danea Railway Station to Tenughat Thermal Power Plant (on Gomoh-Barka Khana Section of Eastern Railway) Package IV respectively .In both the cases the Learned Court below , by a common judgement, has upheld the aforesaid Arbitration Awards both dated 31.03.2010 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that identical issues are involved in both the appeals and accordingly they have been tagged together. The award in relation to aforesaid package no V is subject matter in Arbitration Appeal No. 16/2014 and award in relation to aforesaid package no IV is subject matter in Arbitration Appeal No. 17/2014.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the specific case of the appellant throughout was that the learned Arbitral Tribunal in both the cases has failed to appreciate the conditions of the Contract, prohibiting/barring the claims, settled law, that no claim can be awarded if barred/prohibited by the Contract conditions and the Awards are in violation of the settled law, are unreasoned/ non-speaking, based on assumptions, perverse, jurisdictional objections were not decided and the awards suffer from non-consideration of detailed submissions based on facts, conditions of contract and settled law.;