ORDER
D.K. Jain, J
1. These are respondent no.1/India Tourism Development Corporation’s (for short the ITDC) objections against the award dated 26 May 1993 made by Shri K.L. Sehgal, appointed as the sole arbitrator in the matter.
2. The work of supply , installation, testing and commissioning of electrical system at Hotel Ashok, Bhopal (M.P.) was awarded by the ITDC to the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the contractor) vide work order no.Engg/HQ/E&M/BPL/Electric/Contract dated 11 October 1985. The work was to commence from 15 October 1985 and the period stipulated for completion was nine months i.e. by 14 July 1986. The formal agreement was executed on 3 January 1986. It is alleged that the ITDC changed the layout and drawings for the electrical work, as a result whereof the quantity of work in creased; on account of abnormal delay in completion of the civil work the site was not handed over to the contractor on time, with the result that the execution of electrical work was also delayed. On account of increase in the quantity of work and the delay in handing over the site, the contractor made claims for increase in points etc. and escalation in the price of materials used. The ITDC did not accept the claims preferred by the contractor. Thus the disputes having arisen between the parties, the contractor invoked the arbitration clause, contained in the agreement and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the ITDC, the persona designata, appointed the above named arbitrator as the sole arbitrator to determine the disputes/claims raised by the contractor. After hearing the parties, the learned arbitrator made and published his award on 26 May 1993.
3. In all, five claims were raised by the contractor and two counter claims by the ITDC. Each party resisted the claims/counter claims of the other. In his award, the learned arbitrator allowed contractor’s claim no.1 and 2 (in part) and disallowed his claims no. 2 and 3. Against claim no.5, for interest, he allowed future interest from the date of award till payment in case payment was not made within three months. ITDC’s counter claims were disallowed.
4. On the contractor’s filing a petition under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (registered as Suit No.1604/93), the arbitrator filed his award; notice was issued to the parties, pursuant whereto the ITDC filed objections (IA No.2529/94) against the award pertaining to contractor’s claims no.1(a), 1(b) and relating to extra items no.2 to 7, inter alia, praying for setting aside of the award on these claims.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issue was framed:
“Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds stated in the objection petition?.”
6. Keeping in view the nature of the objections, it was directed that since the record of the arbitrator was to be considered while disposing of the objections, no further evidence was required to be lead.
7. The objections raised by the ITDC against award on the said claims are: (1) that since the amount of the claim in dispute was more than Rs.50,000/-, the arbitrator, in terms of arbitration clause 48 of the agreement, was obligated to give reasons for the award, which he has failed to do and has thus, misconducted himself and the proceedings; (2) that various quantities awarded for the extra work executed by the contractor under claim no. 1 (a), are without any basis and justification; the arbitrator disregarded the measurements recorded in the Measurement Book and no reasons for allowing the excess quantities have been given; (3) that the award in respect of claim no. 1(b) is again without any basis, and is arbitrary and by awarding the amount of Rs.3 lacs by way of escalation for the period from July 1986 to June 1990, the arbitrator acted beyond the contract and thereby exceeded his jurisdiction and (4) there was no basis or justification for award of any amount over and above the amount admitted by ITDC.
8. In its reply, the contractor has denied the allegations and it is stated that the quantities were increased by the arbitrator after due verification of the Measurement Book and records; he has considered all documents placed before him; the objections are untenable and are in the form of a plea to this Court to go into the merits of the award, which is not permissible.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties who have taken me through the award and the arbitration proceedings.
10. There is no gain saying that the jurisdiction of the Court in these proceedings is very limited and an award can be set aside only if it is apparent from the face of the award that there is no evidence to support the conclusion or if the award is based upon any legal proposition, which is erroneous. Even where it is obligatory for the arbitrator to state reasons, it is not obligatory to give detailed judgment. An award has to be read reasonably as a whole and it should only be capable of discerning short intelligible reasons, to find out the mind of the arbitrator for his action. But it is not open to the Court to probe the mental process by which the arbitrator has reached his conclusions. The Court does not sit in appeal over the award and review the reasons. The sufficiency or quality of reasons depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
11. In the light of the above broad principles, I proceed to consider the rival contentions.
12. For the objector/ITDC, it was strenuously argued that the award on claim no.1(a) & 1(b) reflects only abstract finding concluded without any basis or reason to support it. Mr. D.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the ITDC, also contended that while determining the extra work executed by the contractor, the arbitrator has not properly analysed the drawings filed by the contractor and taken note of the discrepancies in the number of points, calculated by the contractor.
13. It is not in dispute that the lay out of various electrical points was changed by the ITDC and there was change/increase of points etc. Not being fully satisfied with the claim for extra quantities made by the contractor, it appears, the arbitrator required the contractor to prepare the completion drawings and the list of inventory, which was done. The said drawings were not disputed by the ITDC. The learned arbitrator analysed these accepted drawings and then, after hearing the parties, determined the quantities of various items which were to be increased. The objection regarding the quantum, now raised by the learned counsel for the ITDC, cannot be entertained. It was a matter of details and merits, to be decided by the arbitrator, which he has done. It cannot be said that the quantities of extra items determined by the learned arbitrator are without any basis, warranting interference by this Court.
14. However, I find that the learned arbitrator has not worked out or determined the exact amount awardable to the contractor as against the claimed amount of Rs.25,44,910.95 paise against claim no.1(a). The amount for which award on claim no.1(a) could be said to have been made is neither specified in the award nor has it been shown to what figure it comes to and how. The award to that extent, being indefinite, is incapable of execution and deserves to be remitted to the learned arbitrator for quantification of the exact amount. It is ordered accordingly.
15. Against claim no.1(b), for Rs.25,44,911.05 paise, which formed part of the consolidated claim no.1 in the sum of Rs.50,89,822/-, claimed as escalation in labour and material for the period from July 1986 to June 1990, to which period the work procrastinated due to non- completion of civil work by the ITDC and other delays on its part, the learned arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 3 lacs. It is true that the arbitrator is not supposed to give detailed reasons for his findings but it has to be discerned from the award as to how his mind operated to come to a finding.
16. Having perused the award, I find that while adjudicating on the said claim , though the learned arbitrator has observed that work could not be completed due to non-completion of civil work and there was delay of nearly four years, but it is not possible to discern therefrom any basis for the award of a sum of Rs.3 lacs against the claim of Rs.25,44,911.05 paise. In view of clause 48 of the agreement, making it obligatory for the arbitrator to give reasons for the award of any amount, where the amount of the claim in dispute is Rs.50,000/- or more, the objection of the ITDC, regarding the legality of the award as being non-speaking, deserves to be accepted.
17. In view of the above, the award on claim no.1(a) and extra items no.2 to 7, being indefinite and inexecutable and no reason in support of finding on claim no.1(b) having been indicated, I am constrained to remit the award back to the learned arbitrator for quantifying the amount awardable against claim 1(a) and extra items no. 2 to 7 and for recording his reasons for the award of the sum of Rs.3 lacs. The learned arbitrator shall submit his decision to the Court on the above points within four months from today after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties of being heard. The arbitrator’s record be sent back to him immediately on his present address, being furnished by the contractor within a week from today.
18. In the result, Suit No.1604/93 (petition under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940) and IA No.2529/94 (objections) stand disposed of with no order as to costs. However, Suit No.1494/93 shall remain pending till final order is passed on receipt of decision of the learned arbitrator on the affronted issues.