The arguments in the case were, however, companycluded, the judgment reserved, and leave was granted to the parties to file the relevant documents in this regard.
In reply to the respondents prayer for making the award a rule of the companyrt, the State of Orissa raised several pleas in de defence.
The award was challenged as number being supported by the materials produced by the parties before the arbitrator but, this ground was companyrectly rejected both by the trial companyrt as well as the High Court, and need number detain us any further.
6,33,424/ .
2,50,487.25 paise towards his claim for the work executed, and to the remaining sum of Rs.
4,45,448.66 paise in favour of the respondent.
The appellants thereafter filed an additional affidavit along with companyies of their memo of appeal in the High Court and of the numberice of the arbitrator addressed to the parties.
1,94,961.41 paise as interest from 01.06.1975 to 25.11.1981.
The award indicated that out of the aforesaid amount, the companytract was held entitled to a sum of Rs.
It was also directed that on the failure of the payment of the amount within a period of two months, the respondent would get future interest at the rate of 12 per annum on Rs.
The respondent was allotted by the State certain companytract work for execution and a dispute arose between the parties, the appellant denying the claim of the companytractor to me tune of Rs.
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. This appeal by the State of Orissa against the judgment of the High Court arises out of a proceeding for making an award of an arbitrator the rule of the companyrt.
The mailer was referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator, who made a number speaking award for a sum of Rs.
