Gurusharan Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard the parties and perused lower Court records. In respect of Agreement No. 5F. 2 of 1979-80, the contractor raised certain claims, which were referred to sole Arbitrator appointed by First Subordinate Judge. Chaibasa, on 5/12/1990. It was related to work known as construction of high level bridge over 'Kur Patta Nala', for which the said agreement was executed. The Arbitrator gave non-speaking award on 19/4/1999 and directed payment of lump sum amount of Rs. 5,06,767.00 to the contractor after adjusting the amount already paid to him during progress of work. Rs. 5,19,942.00 by way of interest @ 15% per annum was granted on the principal award amount from 30/11/1982 to 3/10/1989 (the period prior to coming to court) and Rs. 8,72,652.00 from 4/10/1989 to 28/3/1999 pendente lite. A sum of Rs. 58,700.00 was awarded as cost of arbitration (detailed in a separate sheet enclosed) Thus total amount of Rs. 19,58,061.00 was directed to be paid to the contractor.
(2.) On 4/6/1999, the State of Bihar filed objection to the award and prayed to set-aside the same, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 4 of 1999. It appears that objector failed to give specific particulars about misconduct, if any, on the part of arbitrator. It was also not proved that he had acted beyond the terms of reference. The award, being non-speaking one, the jurisdiction of Court was limited.
(3.) The Arbitrator was not obliged to give reasons unless there was such stipulation in the agreement itself. It is not open to the court to probe the mental process of the arbitrator and speculate where no reason is given by him as to what impelled him to arrive at his conclusion. Lump sum award is not bad per se, as such. The Award cannot be said tobe unvalid merely because it is unreasoned So the impugned award of principal amount of Rs.5,19,942.00 cannot be interfered with. The court below rightly made it Rule of Court.;