Arbitration award review is limited where the arbitrator acts within jurisdiction, gives reasons, and adopts a possible contract interpretation.

Valid appointment of the arbitrator was upheld because the contract required reference by the Chief Engineer in charge of the work, successive references under the continuing arbitration agreement were permissible, and time for making the awards had been extended by consent and court orders, so the arbitrator was not functus officio. The awards were also protected from challenge because they contained reasons where required, and no bias, misconduct, inconsistency, excess of jurisdiction, or error apparent on the face of the record was shown. On the contractual claims, the arbitrator's construction of escalation, extra items, overheads, profit, deviation quantities, and final bill adjustments was a possible view supported by the evidence, so no interference was warranted under the Arbitration Act, 1940.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitrator was validly appointed and whether the successive references were within jurisdiction, including the plea that the arbitrator had become functus officio. (ii) Whether the awards were liable to be set aside for want of reasons, bias, misconduct, inconsistency, excess of jurisdiction, or error apparent on the face of the awards. (iii) Whether the awards on the merits of the contractual claims, including escalation, extra items, overheads, profit, deviation quantities, and final bill adjustments, could be interfered with under the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Issue (i): Whether the arbitrator was validly appointed and whether the successive references were within jurisdiction, including the plea that the arbitrator had become functus officio.

Analysis: The arbitration clause required appointment by the Chief Engineer in charge of the work, and the references were in fact made by that authority in accordance with the contract. The Court found that successive references under the same arbitration agreement were permissible for disputes arising from the continuing contract. Time for making the awards had also been extended by consent and by court orders, so the arbitrator had not ceased to have authority when the awards were made.

Conclusion: The appointment, references, and continuation of the arbitral proceedings were held valid, and the plea of functus officio failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the awards were liable to be set aside for want of reasons, bias, misconduct, inconsistency, excess of jurisdiction, or error apparent on the face of the awards.

Analysis: The arbitration clause required reasons for awards above the specified monetary threshold, and the awards were found to contain reasons. The Court reiterated that it cannot reappraise evidence, test the reasonableness of reasons, or sit in appeal over the arbitrator's conclusions. Allegations of bias had already been rejected in earlier proceedings and were unsupported. The Court also held that the arbitrator did not exceed jurisdiction, ignore material evidence, or commit legal misconduct, and no error apparent on the face of the awards was shown.

Conclusion: The awards were not vitiated on the grounds of bias, misconduct, absence of reasons, inconsistency, or jurisdictional error.

Issue (iii): Whether the awards on the merits of the contractual claims, including escalation, extra items, overheads, profit, deviation quantities, and final bill adjustments, could be interfered with under the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Analysis: The Court held that the contractual terms, including the conditions incorporated through the correspondence between the parties, governed the claims. The arbitrator's interpretation that escalation clauses applied to the relevant items, that overheads and profit were payable, and that the final bill adjustments were to be made in the manner adopted by him was treated as a possible view of the contract. The awards were also found to be reasoned, non-ad hoc, and based on the evidence and measurements before the arbitrator.

Conclusion: The merits of the awards disclosed no ground for interference, and the arbitrator's contractual construction was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The petitions to set aside the three arbitral awards failed in entirety, and the awards were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Court will not reappraise evidence or substitute its own interpretation of the contract where the arbitrator has acted within jurisdiction, given reasons, and adopted a possible view of the contractual terms; interference lies only on recognized grounds such as misconduct, excess of jurisdiction, or error apparent on the face of the award.

---