https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197847 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. en-us Tue, 05 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:29:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197847 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 05 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197847