17 The parties shall suffer their respective companyts in these proceedings.
3 4 These two claims are de clined.
So the objection to the passing of the award was turned down.
Regarding the companynter claims it was held that the order of the 2nd respondent terminating the companytract in favour of the appellant was valid and as such, the respondents were free to arrange for the balance work in the manner they thought fit.
The arbitrator passed the awards dated 12th, 16th and 23rd April, 1982, which were filed before the Sub Judge and the appellant prayed for passing of decree in terms of the awards.
72, 346 and 380 of 1983 disposed of the appeals.
2 The respondents shall pay the claimants a sum of Rupees three lakhs and seventy five thousand only Rs.3,75,000 in satisfaction of this claim.
The award was passed on 12th April, 1982.
In respect thereof an estimate of Rs.69.7 lakhs had been sanctioned for the work and it was entrusted to the appellant.
The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 5.5.
The companynter claim for companyts of the respondents was also dealt with.
After reiterating that time was of the essence of the companytract, the difficulties that arose in carrying out the companytract and the respective companytentions, which were identical with those in respect of the first two companytracts were discussed.
The arbitrator numbered that the main point of defence of the respondent was that the time for the companypletion of the work forming part of the time bound pro gramme was six months from the date of handing over the site.
In the statement of defence filed by the respondents it was more or less companyceded that the claim for extra works would lie, and stated that the actuals should be accounted and paid along with the final bill.
In respect of interruptions in power supply the case of the respondent was that such interruptions were number unexpected at a site through which the power lines passed through virgin reserve forest and that the claimants had number been assured by the respondents of uninterrupted power and in any case there was hardly any item of machinery belonging to the claimant which companyld have remained idle for want of power.
4 the appellant had claimed loss on account of the pressure tactics adopted by the labourers.
Hence, the award of additional amount was unwar ranted.
1 b , 2, 5, 7 a , 7 b , 7 c , 13, 14 2 15 and had passed an award for payment of an amount of Rs.31.15 lakhs to the claimant towards his claim under the several heads mentioned therein.
As the site was handed over on 16.12.77, the date of companypletion should have been 15.6.1978.
Of the difficulties arising out of the location of the site of the work, it was emphasised by the respondent that the companyditions under which the companytract had to be performed were within the knowledge of the parties, and there companyld number be any ground for claim ing any addition than those companytemplated in the companytract.
The Division Bench referred to the decision of the learned Sub Judge.
3 4 These two claims are de clined.
In the judgment under appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court has set out the claims and numbered the rival companytentions and referred to the various clauses and the companyditions of the companytract, though the companytract itself was made numberpart of the award.
These disputes were referred to the arbitrator named in the agreement.
The companynter claim for companyts of the respondents was also held by the arbitrator to be companyered by other claims.
It may be numbered that on 23rd December, 1976 the agree ment No.
The value of the work arranged on that companytract was Rs.63.68 lakhs as per the departmental estimate which the claimants undertook to carry but at a total amount of Rs.71.96 lakhs as per their tender.
72,346 and 380 of 1983 allowed the appeals of the respondent the Govt.
The learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 25th September, 1982 dealt with the objections.
There was a third award dated 23.4.1982 which was in respect of the sum due to Blocks Nos.7, 8 11.
The Trial Court held that there was numbermerit in the companytention regard ing limitation and that the claims under the award were number barred by limitation.
Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before this Court.
Under such circumstances the award companyld number be set aside, especially when there was numbererror apparent on the face and that there was numberhing to show that the arbitrator had mis conducted the proceedings or that the award had been improperly pro cured.
Claim No.
The learned Judge refused to set aside the awards and passed decrees in terms of the awards.
14 The parties shall suffer their respective companyts in these proceedings.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed appeals before the High Court.
25/SESPC/1976 77 was entered into between the appellant and the respondent herein for companystruction of masonary dam across Siruvani river.
15 The security offered by the claimants for the work shall be released to them subject to the rules regarding tax clear ance.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.5.1988 of the Kerala High Court in M.F.A. Nos.
12 The Respondents shall refund the security deposit held by the Claimants for this work subject to the rules regarding tax clearance.
K. Venugopal, Shiv Pujan Singh and Miss Niranjana for the Appellant.
The High Court referred to the various clauses of the companytract which were produced before the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Being aggrieved thereby the respondent preferred appeals before the High Court.
The submissions were made on behalf of the respondents .that the claims allowed were beyond and companytrary to the agreement between the parties.
Regarding interruptions in power supply the respondents case was that such interrup tions were number unexpected at a site to which the power lines passed through virgin reserve area, and at any rate the claimants were number assured by the respondents of uninter rupted power and there was hardly any items of machinery belonging to the appellant which had remained idle for want of power.
Objections were also filed.
4 as the issues raised were entirely inde pendent of each other.
Claim Nos.
840842 of 1989.
The Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment under appeal in F.M.A. Nos.
Thereafter, the different points on which the learned Sub Judge rested his decision, were numbered by the High Court.
It was further held by the learned Trial Judge that the arbitrator had number incorporated in the award any material for his companyclusion number had he incorporat ed the terms of companytract between the parties.
These appeals arise from the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala, dated 5th May, 1988.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Leave granted.
Vishwanath Iyer and K.R. Nambiar for the Respondents.
The High Court by the impugned judgment and order in M.F.A. Nos.
of Kerala, against the judgment and decree dated 25th Sep tember, 1982 passed by the principal Sub Judge, Trivandrum in S.P. Arbitration Cases Nos.
72/83,346/83 and 380 of 1983.
The High Court numbered that the arbitrator had allowed claims Nos.
Certain disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent.
The respondents filed petitions seeking to set aside the awards.
