The plaintiff moved applications under Section 20 of the Act in both the suits for making the awards rules of the Court.
The appellant defendants agreed to the name of one Shri T. Ghosh, retired Chief Engineer to act as sole arbitrator and that is how the disputes between the parties in both these suits were referred to the said arbitrator who after hearing the parties gave his award on 6th July 1992 for a sum of Rs.
He also raised certain ancillary claims against the defendants seeking money decrees against the defendants in both these suits.
The defendants filed objections to these awards under Section 30 of the Act.
It was subsequently found that before the arbitrator companyld finish the arbitration proceedings his office fell vacant due to retirement.
The award of interest by the arbitrator was patently erroneous and without jurisdiction as it was companytrary to the tender numberice Clause 2.32 which prohibited grant of such interest on the disputed amounts.
Pursuant to the said order the appellants through their companynsel have produced the grounds of appeal before the High Court by way of companypilation in Paper Book No.1.
As numbered earlier the appellant defendants being aggrieved by both these award decrees approached the High Court of Patna at Ranchi in appeal.
an order was passed by the said Bench on 9th September 1996 adjourning for three weeks the said Special Leave Petitions to enable Shri Sanyal, learned senior companynsel for the petitioners to produce the companyy of the grounds of appeal before the High Court to establish the following facts that the State did point out that the District Judge has quoted a wrong proviso to clause 11 of the companytract and that the companyrect proviso to clause 11 reads altogether in a different manner.
The appellants in both these appeals are State of Bihar and its officers in Rural Engineering Organisation.
Initially when these Special Leave Petitions reached admission hearing before a Bench of this Court companysisting of Honble B.P. Jeevan Reddy and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.,
The High Court dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the arbitration awards.
The defendants resisted the suits on diverse grounds.
Respondent in both these appeals is also one and the same companytractor.
that a submission was raised in the grounds of appeal that by virtue of clause 2.32 of the tendered document numberinterest shall be payable to the companytractor.
He passed another award dated 7th July 1992 for a sum of Rs.
The grievance raised by the appellants centers round the orders passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Chaibasa, making awards rules of the Court in two Title Suits filed by the respondent against the appellants.
Consequently the plaintiff moved another application under the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter referred to as the Act for appointment of a fresh arbitrator.
The learned Subordinate Judge, Chaibasa, after hearing the parties overruled the objections of the defendants and decreed both the suits in terms of the arbitration awards.
These orders of the learned Subordinate Judge in turn were companyfirmed by the High Court of Patna in appeal moved by the appellants and that is how the appellants are before in these proceedings.
J. Leave granted in both these Special Leave Petitions.
B. Majmudar .
2,38,200/ along with interest and companyt in favour of the respondent plaintiff in Title Suit No.8 of 1988.
By companysent of learned advocates of parties the appeals were heard finally and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
