Judgement LODHA, C. J. :- This is an appeal under S.39 (6) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 from the order by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tripura dated 3rd May, 1975 in Arbitration Case No. 5 of 1972 whereby the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge refused to set aside the award passed on 29th Nov., 1973 by Shri J.M. Basu, Construction Superintendent National Project. It appears that the appellant National Project Construction Corporation Ltd. (which will hereinafter be referred to as Corporation), Gumti Unit, Jatanbari, South Tripura invited tenders for excavation of power channel from Cross Drainage No. 5 to Cross Drainage No. 1 for the Gumti Hydro Electric Project and Messrs. Deb Barma Construction Company (which will hereinafter be referred to as Construction Company) submitted tender which was accepted by the said Corporation and a formal agreement was drawn between the parties on 14-6-1973 with respect to the works to be carried out by the Construction Company. However, certain disputes and differences arose between the parties. The Construction Company claimed against the Corporation Rupees 4,09,424/- whereas the Corporation refuted the Companys claim. Consequently the matters of dispute were referred to the Arbitrator as per Cl.8 of the agreement. Both the parties filed written statements and produced their witnesses before the Arbitrator. On 29-11-73 the Arbitrator made his award the relevant portion of which reads as follows :- "After going through the detailed statement of claims, counter statements, all documents and depositions filed by the parties and allowing full opportunities to adduce evidence, if any, I make my award with respect to this said agreement dated 14th June, 1968. I award Rs. 64,830 (Rupees sixty four thousand eight hundred and thirty only) in favour of the claimants and against the respondents which is considered to be justified by me. The cost of the proceedings shall be borne by the respective parties. This award has been made by me on this day the 29th November, 1973." 2. Both the parties filed objections to the award and prayed that the same may be set aside. The Construction Company however, withdrew its objection. Consequently the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge dealt with the objections filed by the Corporation. This award has been made by me on this day the 29th November, 1973." 2. Both the parties filed objections to the award and prayed that the same may be set aside. The Construction Company however, withdrew its objection. Consequently the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge dealt with the objections filed by the Corporation. The objection by the Corporation was that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself inasmuch as he did not frame issues nor did he deal with each claim separately but gave a consolidated award and further that he gave no reasons in support of his award. 3. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the Corporation has failed to establish any misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator nor there is error in law on the face of the award. In AIR 1923 PC 66 the Privy Council observed as follows :- "An error in law on the face of the award means, in their Lordships view that you can find in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto, as for instance, a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his judgement, some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which you can then say is erroneous." 4. In the present case, it is clear, and it is also the contention on behalf of the appellant, that the Arbitrator gave no reason for the award. Consequently there is no legal proposition which may be said to be the basis of the award, with the result that there is no room for argument that the legal proposition is erroneous. Therefore the argument that there is error in law on the face of the award cannot stand and must be rejected. In this connection we may refer to the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Firm Madanlal Roshanlal v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1030 (at p. 1031) :- "In the present case, the arbitrator gave no reason for the award. We do not find in the award any legal proposition which is the basis of the award, far less a legal proposition which is erroneous. It is not possible to say from the award that the arbitrator was under a misconception of law. The contention that there are errors of law on the face of the award is rejected." 5. We do not find in the award any legal proposition which is the basis of the award, far less a legal proposition which is erroneous. It is not possible to say from the award that the arbitrator was under a misconception of law. The contention that there are errors of law on the face of the award is rejected." 5. There is also no force in the appellants contention that the Arbitrator was bound to give his award with respect to each claim. In the Supreme Court case referred to above it was held that the Arbitrator could give a lump sum award and he was not bound to give separate award for each claim. 6. The last contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the Arbitrator should have framed issues is also devoid of substance. The Arbitrator was not bound to follow the procedure laid down in the Civil P.C. 7. We are, therefore, of opinion that the Arbitrator did not commit any legal misconduct nor is there any error in law apparent on the face of the award. The award is final both on fact and law and cannot be interfered with. The result is that we do not find any force in this appeal and hereby dismiss it, but make no order as to costs. BAHARUL ISLAM, J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed.