D. R. Kliunna ( 1 ) WHETHER the award is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the objection petition ? ( 2 ) A perusal of the award shows that it is a non-speaking one, and the claim of Ashok Leyland Ltd. is allowed for Rs. 1,79,666. 00. No reasons are given, nor any evidence discussed for arriving at this conclusion. * The award also does not make reference to any document or makes that as part of the award. Normally, therefore, the Court is precluded from goving into the merits of the decision or probing into the mental process by which the learned arbitrator arrived at his conclusion. The arbitrator being Judge of both questions of fact and law, his decision is not open to purview before the Court. It is only when a mistake apparent on the face of the award exists that the Court can be justified to interfere. It is also well settled that while hearing objections against an award, the Court cannot assume to itself the role of an appellate authority, or embark upon reviewing the pros and cons of the decision. ( 3 ) THIS being the state of law, 1 should have least hesitation in rejecting the objections to the award and making that a rule of the Court. However, Mr. Sanghi, appearing for the objector has led me through the arbitration record in order to show that three claims had been put up before the arbitrator by the contractor. They were of the amounts of Rs. 4, 648. 00, Rs. 31, 609. 00 and Rs. 1, 48 057. 00. The first two related to two lots o, leyland chassis which the contractor haf supplied. One lot was constituted of 9d vehicles, and the other of 105 vehicles. Ther3 had however after the acceptance of the tender, taken place some rise in price because of enhancement of custom and excise dutye and the contractor on that score, sought, corresponding increase in the price of the chassis so supplied. ( 4 ) THE third amount was for repayment of liquidated damages which had already been recovered by the Union of India from the bills of the contractor. ( 5 ) ON the first two amounts, the contra- ctor gave up its claim of Rs. 4, 648. 00. Thus the only other two amounts left were Rs. 31 609. ( 4 ) THE third amount was for repayment of liquidated damages which had already been recovered by the Union of India from the bills of the contractor. ( 5 ) ON the first two amounts, the contra- ctor gave up its claim of Rs. 4, 648. 00. Thus the only other two amounts left were Rs. 31 609. 00 and Rs. 1, 48. 057. 00. Their sum total comes to Rs. 1, 79,666. 00 which have been made the subject-matter of the award. ( 6 ) THE sum and substance of the case of the contractor is that there has occurred a patent error in the learned arbitrator assuming that the amount of Rs. 31, 609. 00 represented the increase in price of 105 chassis. Rather it is stated that the increase to that extent was per chassis. In this manner the claim towards 105 chassis would have amounted to more than rupees 31 lacs. The contractor claims that the claim before the arbitrator was of Rs. 31,609. 00per chassis, and when he allowed the. same, he mistakenly did not multiply that with 105 chassis which were the Subject matter of this claim. Grave injustice, in this manner, it is stated, has flowed, and overwhelming part of the claim of the contractor has either not been adjudicated or not allowed. ( 7 ) FROM the side of the Union of India, on the othe hand Mr. Wntwani has pleaded that the award of Rs. 1,79, 666. 00has to be considered in the context of what the learned arbitrator considered was allowable to the contractor. The bifurcation of this award into the two amounts of the claims as aforesaid, has been contested. It is urged that the learned arbitrator should be taken to have considered the entire controversy before him, and the claims set up during arbitration, and there is nothing to assume that the claim towards 105 chassis was not taken into account. It has, however, not been disputed that the increase of Rs. 31, 609. 00as put up by the contractor in the claim, related to per chassis. ( 8 ) I have perused the claim petition which the contractor had submitted before the learned arbitrator, and must record an adverse note that the predicament in which the contractor finds itself landed, is much of its own doing. 31, 609. 00as put up by the contractor in the claim, related to per chassis. ( 8 ) I have perused the claim petition which the contractor had submitted before the learned arbitrator, and must record an adverse note that the predicament in which the contractor finds itself landed, is much of its own doing. The claim which was submitted before the arbitrator was not happily worded, and it was not clarified specifically in the same that the amount of Rs. 31, 609. 00was for each chassis. Rather it was mentioned that "the price increase of Rs. 31. 609. 00for 105 chassis" was being claimed. In such circumstances, if the arbitrator has allowed the entire two amounts as agitated in the claim petition, much exception could not be on the face of it, taken. ( 9 ) THE question arises whether for the faulty drafting of the claim by the contractor, the genuine claim, if any, should outright be rejected. Mr. Sanghi in no manner has attempted to support the unfortunate drafting of the claim petition in the present case. However, he has referred to a number of documents which tend to show that the increase claimed by the contractor had reference to each chassis. . One of the documents before the arbitrator was a report by the Cost Accountant of the Government of India, certifying the increase to that extent. Mr. Watwani too has not disputed that the claim of Rs. 31,609. 00was for each chassis. ( 10 ) THE question to be considered is whether the learned arbitrator was conscious while giving his award of this circumstance, and when he awarded Rs. 1,79,666. 00, he was including the amount of Rs. 31,609. 00in he same, and whether it was with reference to one chassis or 105 chassis. The answer to this can only be given by the arbitrator. Since the matter involved is of considerable mag- itude, I am inclined to remit back the award to the learned arbitrator for considering this aspect of the controversy. . The objections are, therefore, partly allowed, and the award is remitted back to the learned arbitrator for adjudication afresh in the light of observation made above.