Arbitral award sustained where no misconduct or patent legal error was shown and damages were not proved.

An arbitral award will not be set aside where the objections disclose neither misconduct by the arbitrator nor an error of law apparent on the face of the award. The award was sustained because the arbitrator's reasoning supported forfeiture of the security deposit, treated the later risk purchase as vitiated by inordinate delay and want of notice to the original contractor, and found that actual loss or general damages had not been proved. The challenge to the rejection of the claim for the differential amount did not furnish a valid basis for interference, so the objections were rejected and the award was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for misconduct of the arbitrator or for an error of law apparent on the face of the award.

Analysis: The objections were examined against the reasoning disclosed in the award. The arbitrator had upheld forfeiture of the security deposit, found the later risk purchase to be vitiated because it was undertaken after an inordinate delay and without notice to the original contractor, and held that the Union of India had failed to prove actual loss or general damages. The challenge did not disclose any misconduct, nor any manifest legal error apparent on the face of the record. The mere rejection of the Union of India's claim for the differential amount did not furnish a ground to invalidate the award.

Conclusion: The award was not liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The objections were rejected and the award was affirmed and made part of the decree.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award will not be set aside where the reasoning shows no misconduct or patent error, and where the objecting party fails to prove actual damages or other grounds warranting interference.

---