JUDGMENT : S. Shamsul Hasan, J. In this appeal by the State of Bihar, the scenario is familiar, the dramatis personae usual, the start, the climax and the anti climax routine, that is, a contractor, a tender, the Executive Engineer, four agreements unaccomplished contract, claim and counter claim, arbitration, award and appeal, the contractor being the hero, the State the victim, and the arbitrator, the usual villain, with the court bringing no succour to the victim, hence the appeal. 2. A notice was issued by the State of Bihar inviting tenders for several constructions and supply in connection with supply of boulders and construction of embankment. The respondent firm filed their tenders leading ultimately to the execution of four agreements signed by the Executive Engineer on one hand and the contractor on the other. The details of work in the four agreements are as follows :- (i) Agreement no. 28H2 of 1974-75 for supply of stone Boulders at Koilwar. Value of work Rs. 1,31,976/-. (ii) Agreement No. 1 H 2 of 1975-76 for supply of stone boulders at Babura. Value of work Rs. 1,09,247/-. (iii) Agreement No. 11 H 2 of 1975-76 for supply of stone Boulders at Koilwar. Value of work Rs. 2,04,225/-. (iv) Agreement No. 28F2 of 1974-75 for construction of embankment along with the right bank of West Gangi. Value of work Rs. 10,00,000/-. (v) Agreement No. 18F2 of 1974-75 for construction of embankment from Railway line near Jamuria in East Gangi. Value of work Rs. 2,50,000/-. The construction remained only to sink in the quagmire of claim and counter claim. The appellant complained of incomplete work beyond the stipulated period and the contractor blamed the State Government for the existence of that state of affairs. The aforesaid situation led to the filing of a petition dated 9.9.1978 in the Court of Subordinate Judge I, Patna, by the Respondent in which it was, after stating the facts, stated that the petitioner-respondent had no faith in the Superintending Engineer who was designated arbitrator under clause 14 of the agreement because the said Superintending Engineer had earlier held out a three at to fix the petitioner-respondent etc. The court issued notice to the State of this petition. The court then proceeded in the manner as Courts do in a proceeding under section 20 of the Arbitration Act and ultimately called for the filing of the agreements. The court issued notice to the State of this petition. The court then proceeded in the manner as Courts do in a proceeding under section 20 of the Arbitration Act and ultimately called for the filing of the agreements. It will be relevant, in ORDER :to answer the points raised to set out certain extract from the ORDER :-sheet undiluted by any interpretation which is as below :- It appears from the ORDER :-sheet that the designated arbitrator was transferred but no Incumbent had joined the post. Since probably the petitioner was keen to get an early arbitration of his dispute, at his request, in the absence of the Superintending Engineer, the court suggested three names that was given in the Court by the petitioner-respondent for being appointed as an arbitrator. Ultimately, the Court appointed the present arbitrator without any objection thereafter by the State in spite of an opportunity being given to do so. From the ORDER :-sheet, it also appears that a considerable time elapsed between the reference to the arbitrator by the Court and the arbitrator entering into the arbitration. A petition was filed before the arbitrator objecting to his proceeding with the reference on the ground of improper appointment. The arbitrator dismissed this petition. The State then filed an application for adjournment in ORDER :to take the matter upto a higher Court. Though the adjournment was refused but this was not done and the appellant participated in the arbitration proceeding throughout. Evidence was led by both the sides and several points were urged both by the contractor-respondent and the appellant resulting ultimately in the award. When the award was transmitted to the Court, the appellant filed an objection. The Court, however, rejected the objection, basically and broadly, on two grounds apart from others. It held that in the award in which the arbitrator did not state the reasons for the conclusions arrived at, the Court cannot embark upon an inquiry into the correctness of the award and the appellant having participated in the arbitration proceedings could not raise any objection they did. The Court, however, held partially the point of bar of limitation hitting the filing of the objection in favour of the appellant rejecting however, the second objection which they claimed to be a mere clarification of the points raised in the first objection but the Court treated it as a separate objection. The Court, however, held partially the point of bar of limitation hitting the filing of the objection in favour of the appellant rejecting however, the second objection which they claimed to be a mere clarification of the points raised in the first objection but the Court treated it as a separate objection. Schedule XLII-High Court No. (J)9(Old(M) 164) FROM OF ORDER :SHEET COURT OF Sub-Judge I, Patna, Misc. Judl. Case No. 53 of 1978. Shri K.P. Gupta Versus Executive Engineer, Flood Central Division, Arrah. Serial No. Date of ORDER : ORDER :with the signature Office action taken or proceeding. of the Court. with date. Schedule XLII-High Court No. (J)9(Old(M) 164) FROM OF ORDER :SHEET COURT OF Sub-Judge I, Patna, Misc. Judl. Case No. 53 of 1978. Shri K.P. Gupta Versus Executive Engineer, Flood Central Division, Arrah. Serial No. Date of ORDER : ORDER :with the signature Office action taken or proceeding. of the Court. with date. 1 2 3 4 1- 9-9-78 vkt ;g tks vkosnu&i= fufo”V gqvk mls Hkkjrh; vkchZVªs’ku ,sDV dh /kkjk 8 rFkk 20 ds vUrxZr iathd`r fd;k tk;s rFkk fnukad 16&9&78 dks flfjLrsnkj ds izfrosnu ds lkFk is’k fd;k tk;sA gE & vLi”V lE tE 1 A 5- 1-12-78 vkosnd dh gktjh gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls ljdkjh vf/koDrk mifLFkfr nkf[ky djrs gSa ,oa le; gsrq ,d fuosnu&i= izfo”V djrs gSaA foi{kh fnuakd 19&12&78 rd fojks/k&i= nkf[ky djsaA gE & vLi”V voj U;kE 1 A 9- 9&3&79 vkosnd dh gkftjh gSA vkosnd dh vksj ls ,d ‘kiFk&i= ;qDr vkosnu&i= nsdj fuosnu fd;k tkrk gS fd fofo/k okn ds vkosnu&i= es la’kks/ku fd;k tk;sA bls vfHkys[k ds lkFk j[kk tk;sA foi{kh vxj pkgs rks vxys frfFk rd viuk fojks/k&i= ns ldrs gSaA foIk{k }kjk ‘kks dkSt nkf[ky djus gsrq le; dk vkosnu&i= nkf[ky fd;k tkrk gSA bls vfHkys[k ds lkFk j[kk tk;sA fnukad 17&3&79 Hkkoh vkns’kkFkZ is’k fd;k tk;sA gE&vLi”V lEtE 1 A 10- 17&3&79 vkosnd dh gktjh gSA foi{k dh vksj ls dkj.k i`PNk nkf[ky djus gsrq le; dk fuosnu i= izfo”V fd;k x;k gSA mHk; i{k ds vf/koDrk mifLFkr gSA vkosnd dh vksj ls fnukad 9&3&79 dh tks fuosnu&i= izfo”V dj fofo/k vkosnu&i= es la’kks/ku djus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gS mls izLrkfor fd;k x;kA bldh izfrfyfi mlh frfFk dks foi{kh dks ns fn;k x;k Fkk ijUrq vkt Hkh mUgksus bldk dksbZ izR;qRrj ugh fn;k gSA vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lqukA izkFkZuk Lohd`r dh x;hA ;FkkizkfFkr fofo/k vkosnu&i= es la’kks/ku fd;k tk;sA vafre :Ik ls foi{kh dks dkj.ki`PNk nkf[ky djus gsrq fnukad 7&4&79 rd le; fn;k tkrk gSA os mDr frfFk rd ,xzhesUV Hkh nkf[ky dj nsaA gE&vLi”V voj U;kE 1 A 12- 25&4&79 vkosnd dh vksj ls gktjh rFkk ;Fkk&lwph mijksDr vkns’kkuqlkj ,xhzesUV dh izfrfyfi nkf[ky dh xbZ gSA foi{kh vkt dkj.ki`PNk nkf[ky djrs gSa ftldh izfrfyfi vkosnd dks ugh nh xbZ gS vkSj xr frfFk ij foi{kh dk vkosnu&i= Hkh bl vk’k; dk [kkfjt fd;k tk pqdk gSA fnukad 5&5&79 dks ;g okn lquokbZ gsrq j[kk x;kA vkosnd vius lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk rS;kj vkosA gE&vLi”V vE U;kE 1 A 14- 11&5&79 vkosnd dh gktjh gSA vkosnd dh vksj ls ,d fuosnu&i= izfo”V dj mlesa of.kZr vk/kkj ij fofo/k okn ds vkosnu&i= es la’kks/ku djus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA bldh izfrfyfi foi{k dks ns nh x;h gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls bldk dksbZ fojks/k ugh fd;k x;k gSA mDr fuosnu&i= izLrkfor fd;k x;kA lqukA foi{kh dh vksj ls dksbZ fojks/k ugh fd;k x;k gS vr% mDr izkFkZuk Lohd`r dh tkrh gSA ;Fkk izkfFkr ewy vkosnu&i= es foi{kh 2 ds :i esa “The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna” tksM+dj la’kks/ku fd;k tk;sA fnukad 29&5&79 dks lquokbZ gsrq izLrqr fd;k tk;sA gE&vLi”V voj U;kE 1 A 16- 8&6&79 mHk; i{k dh mifLFkfr gSA iqdkj ij mHk; i{k mifLFkr gq,A vkE lkE 1 ¼ds’ko izlkn xqIrk½ dh ijh{kk ,oa izfrijh{kk dh x;hA vkxs lk{; gsrq fnukad 9&6&79 dks izLrqr fd;k tk;sA gE&vLi”V voj U;kE 1 A 18- 14&6&79 mHk; i{k dh mifLFkr gSA vkxs lk{; iqujkjEHk fd;k x;kA vkE lkE 2 dh ijh{kk ,oa izfrijh{kk dh x;hA vkosnd dh vksj ls lk{; cUn fd;k x;kA fnuakd 25&6&79 foi{kh dh vksj ls lk{; gsrq j[kk x;kA gE&vLi”V voj U;kE 1 A 19- 25&6&79 vkosnd dh gktjh gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls ,d le; ds fuosnu i= izfo”V fd;s x;s gSaA muds vkosnu ij fnukad 29&6&79 foi{kh dh vksj ls lk{; gsrq j[kk x;k rFkk mUgs ;g vafre ekSdk fn;k x;kA gE&vLi”V voj U;kE 1 A 21- 6&7&79 mHk; i{k dh mifLFkfr gSA mHk; i{k ds vf/koDrk mifLFkr gSA mHk; i{k dh vksj ls cgl lquk x;kA rRi’pkr foi{kh dh vksj ls ,d fuosnu&i= izfo”V dj izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA fd mUgs lECk) foHkkx ls vuqjks/k izkIRk djus gsrq ,d lIrkg ds fy;s bl okn dks LFkfxr fd;k tk;sA vr% ;g okn fnukad 13&7&79 ds fy;s LFkfxr fd;k tkrk gSA foi{kh mDr frfFk ij mfpr iSjoh djs vU;Fkk bls vkns’k ij j[kk tk;sxkA gE&vLi”V voj U;kE 1 A 22- 12&7&79 foi{kh dh vksj ls ,d fuosnu i=&izfo”V fd;k x;k gS fd Jh dsE ,uE yky] v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark dk LFkkukUrj.k gks x;k gS vkSj muds LFkku ij nwljs O;fDr dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus okys gSa vkSj bl vk/kkj ij os mls u;s v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk] lksu vpy vkjk] tks dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus okys gSa] dks iap fu;qDr fd;k tk;sA bls izLrkfor djus ij fuf’pr frfFk ij izLrqr fd;k tk;sA gE&vLi”V voj U;kE 1 A 23- 13&7&79 foi{kh dh mifLFkfr gSA vkosnd dh vksj ls foi{kh ds fnukad 12&7&79 ds fuosnu i= dk izR;qRrj nkf[ky fd;k x;kA foi{kh dh vksj ls nkf[ky fnukad 12&7&79 dk fuosnu&i= izLrkfor fd;k x;kA mHk; i{k dks lqukA foi{kh ds fuosnu ij okn fnukad 23&7&79 ds fy;s LFkfxr fd;k tkrk gSA mDr frfFk rd lksu vpay vkjk ds u;s v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk vxj dk;ZHkkj ugh xzg.k djsaxs rks mDr frfFk ij iap dh bl fu;qfDr gsrq frfFk fuf’pr dj nh tk;sxhA gE&vLi”V voj U;kE 1 A 24- 23&7&79 mHk; i{k dh mifLFkfr gSA vkosnd dh vksj ls lwph ds lkFk flapkbZ foHkkx dk i= laE&628 fnukad 23&7&79 tks vkosnd ds ikl fy[kk x;k gS] nkf[ky fd;k x;kA foi{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ¼tqfu;j Vw thE ihE iVuk½ ds vuqjks/k ij vkosnd dh vksj ls nkf[ky ik¡p ,xzhesaV dks funsZ’k&,] ,@1] ,@2] ,@3] ,@4 fpfUgr fd;k x;kA pwafd u;s vfHk;Urk us dk;ZHkkj ugh fy;k gSA vr% iap dh fu;qfDr ij iqu% mHk; i{kksa dks lquk x;kA fnukad 28&7&79 dks vkns’k gsrq izLrqr fd;k tk;sA gE&vLi”V voj U;kE 1 A 25- 28&7&79 vkns’k i`Fkd i`”Bksa ij ?kksf”kr fd;k x;k tks vfHkys[k ds lkFk layXu gSA Jh lhE dsE ,uE flUgk] fjVk;MZ phQ bUthfu;j] flapkbZ foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj iVuk dks bl okn es iap fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA LkHkh lEc) dkxtkr dks muds ikl Hkstk tk;sA fnukad 1&9&79 Hkkoh vkns’k osrqA gE&vLi”V voj U;kE 1 A 31. 5-10-79 Received award under sealed cover from arbitrator under No.5/C-A/79 dated 5-10-79. Let it be kept with record and put up on the date fixed in presence of the parties. Sd/- Illegible S.J.-I. 3. The claim of the respondent-applicant contractor was as follows :- On entering into the contract and on receipt of the work ORDER :, he started work with imported labour force of 1000 men from Bilaspur in Madhya Pradesh. He paid advance money to each of them and also the railway fares. At the site of the work, he made arrangements of their accommodation in tents and purchased implements for the work and then he started the work with a view to complete the work in time. For some days, progress of the work was held up for want of approved alignment of the embankment by the Chief Engineer which caused his labour to sit idle and thereby he suffered heavy financial loss. However, the work was started but the progress of the work dwindled down due to public obstructions on account of want of land acquisitions. Due to this handicap and other obstructions, the contractor-applicant could complete only part of the work. Thereafter the agreement of the applicant was closed fond all the works done by him was ORDER :ed to be measured and final bill was prepared. On payments not being made after repeated demands, the matter gave rise to the arbitration. 4. The claim of the State appellant is as follows :- (i) The contractor had falsely got excess measurements of his works done by the department vide pages 72 to 83 of M-B-No. 21 submitted and has thus managed to receive excess payments of Rs. 1, 45, 128 from the department fraudulently. (ii) The above excess payment has been detected by the opposite party after taking the final measurement of the contractor's earth on 21.9.1979 vide pages 62 to 72 of M.B. No. 26 submitted. (iii) It was incorrect to say that there were public obstructions in borrowing earth for the construction of embankment due to non-acquisition of lands because had there been any public obstruction due to non-acquisition of land, he would have refused to work in the very beginning and would have asked the department then to close his contract. The contractor refused to work vide his letter no. The contractor refused to work vide his letter no. nil dated 22.3.75 because he after receiving false and fraudulent payments of Rs. 2, 98, 508/- upto 2nd on a/c bills wanted to get away from the work on false plea of public obstructions due to non-acquisition of land. (iv) The opposite party has denied the claims of idle labour stating that there was no public obstructions. (v) The ORDER :of the then Addl. Chief Engineer of Flood Control Organisation, Patna, contained in his letter no. 2076 dated 13.12.1975 to close the contract was void in law as the Additional Chief Engineer has no locus standi under the terms of the agreement to interfere with the performance of the contract. It is only the Superintending Engineer and none else. (vi) The opposite party accepted that Rs. 72, 892/- of the applicant is due from department on account of earnest money and security deposits but the money now stands forfeited to Government since the contractor did not complete the work in time. (vii) An other claims of the applicant were denied by the opposite party State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. M.S. Madhup with a good deal of forensic skill created, I must confess, a mirage which ultimately on a closer approach was found to be without substance. He raised several points but great stress was laid on the following: - (i) Since the appointment of the arbitrator was not in accordance with law and the arbitrator chose to proceed with the arbitration in spite of the objection by the appellant, the award cannot be sustained. (ii) Since the agreement entered into between the contractor and the Executive Engineer was not in accordance with law and Article 299 of the Constitution of India, the entire proceeding was void and no right accrues to the respondent contractor. (iii) The arbitrator in terms of section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and other sections of the Act cannot arbitrate the dispute arising out of five agreements in one arbitration proceeding followed by a single award. Each one being a separate dispute, should have been subjected to separate arbitration proceeding and separate award. (iv) The arbitrator should not have allowed the claim for idle labourers which claim strictly prohibited by the agreement itself and also should not have denied cross-claim of the State. Each one being a separate dispute, should have been subjected to separate arbitration proceeding and separate award. (iv) The arbitrator should not have allowed the claim for idle labourers which claim strictly prohibited by the agreement itself and also should not have denied cross-claim of the State. (v) The second objection filed before the Court to the award should not have been ignored as barred by time because they were really elucidation of initial objection which was filed within time and was not a fresh objection at all. (vi) No notice was served on the appellant under section 14 of the Act either by the Court or by the arbitrator for the purpose of filing the objection. 5. Collectively, these points and all other smaller points raised, though not mentioned by me, can be disposed of by deciding the two points-(i) whether the objections now raised or raised before the Court were hit by the doctrine of estoppel and (ii) whether an inquiry can be made into the correctness or otherwise of the award if it is found that the conclusion of the arbitrator is not based on any reason or finding but is what is described, in common parlance, as a bald award, thus, precluding any scrutiny by the Court. These points can then be disposed of by their individual examination also. 6. Taking up the first point, any objection regarding the appointment of the arbitrator, the procedure followed in this connection, the validity of the agreements, the observance of the provisions of section 14 of the Act and the amalgamation of various disputes in one arbitration proceeding cannot now be countenanced because the appellants surrendered to the arbitration without raising these objections at the appropriate stage and in the case of the appointment of arbitrator allowing the refusal of adjournment without taking the matter to the higher forum to stay there without any further step. In other words, having run the gamut of the entire arbitration proceeding, it is not open to the appellants to raise this issue. The details of these points will be highlighted hereafter. 7. As to the second point, the situation in law is well settled that if an award does not set out any reason for the conclusion of the arbitrator, the Courts are excluded from examining the justifiability of the award. The details of these points will be highlighted hereafter. 7. As to the second point, the situation in law is well settled that if an award does not set out any reason for the conclusion of the arbitrator, the Courts are excluded from examining the justifiability of the award. Learned counsel for the appellant took me through certain passages of the award and submitted that the Court has stated its reasons and given its findings before coming to the final award and has further submitted that while giving the award when the Court mentions that it has examined the records of both the sides, heard arguments considered the whole matter, it then clearly conveys that the arbitrator has discussed the points raised by the parties and has given definite findings on the questions disputed between the parties. I am afraid, I cannot accept this submission also. I have examined the entire award in extenso. The award sets out the case of the applicant respondent first in detail and then has repeated the same over and over again while dealing with the various agreements but they are all clearly and patently statements of the state of affairs as claimed by the applicant-respondent. The arbitrator then sets out the case of the State. He sums it up at one place followed again by a long summing up of the case of the applicant respondent but again there appears to be no finding or reasons. This is also patent from the fact that had any conclusion or finding been intended by the arbitrator, then I have no matter of doubt that the objection of the appellant would have been considered in just opposition to the claim of the applicant. The size of the statement of the case of the parties indeed created a misgiving that the Court has arrived at reasoned conclusions and had recorded findings also on each point. The deeper examination of the matter clearly shows that it was not so. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that ultimate award of the arbitrator allowing a sum of Rs. five lakhs with ten per cent interest per annum thereon with effect from 1.1.1976 was without assigning any reasons whatsoever and the award indeed is a bald one. Having found this, the factual objection to the award disappears automatically and cannot be resurrected for examination by this Court. 8. five lakhs with ten per cent interest per annum thereon with effect from 1.1.1976 was without assigning any reasons whatsoever and the award indeed is a bald one. Having found this, the factual objection to the award disappears automatically and cannot be resurrected for examination by this Court. 8. On these two grounds, therefore, all the objections of the learned counsel for the appellant become unsustainable. I would, however like to examine the points raised in appeal individually also. 9. Coming to the first point, the ORDER :-sheet of the court below clearly indicates that the procedure followed was entirely in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The ORDER :-sheet set out by me is indicative of it and does not warrant any objection. The Court adopted the procedure laid down under section 20 of the Act and asked for the filing of the agreements which were duly filed and then proceeded to hear the matter and on being told that the designated arbitrator has been transferred, proceeded to appoint another arbitrator. The information with regard to the transfer of the arbitrator was given by the appellants and the appellants did not raise any objection to the nomination of Sri K.N. Lall as arbitrator who gave the award. Even half hearted objection made before the arbitrator himself was given its burial there and the appellants then proceeded to participate fully and completely with the arbitration proceeding. It is too late in the day now, in my view, to raise any objection on these grounds. The objection filed was rightly rejected by the arbitrator. If the arbitrator was mis-conducting himself, the remedy was open to the State which was never adopted. I, therefore, see no merit in this point. 10. As to the second point, at all times, the agreements that are being assailed as being hit by Article 299 of the Constitution, were being acted upon by the parties concerned and it cannot be disputed that the advance payments were made, work ORDER :s were issued and some raw materials were supplied on the basis of these agreements. It was again on the basis of these agreements that the contractor set up the organisation of his labourers for executing the works for which he had secured the tender and had entered into the concerned agreements. It was again on the basis of these agreements that the contractor set up the organisation of his labourers for executing the works for which he had secured the tender and had entered into the concerned agreements. I have examined the copies of the agreements on the record filed by the State again without any objection in relation to its nature and find that the Executive Engineer had signed it on behalf of the Governor of Bihar. The counsel for the State submitted that the onus was on the contractor to show that the Executive Engineer was the duly authorised person to execute the contract. I am afraid, I cannot accept this submission as well particularly, in absence of any objection at any prior stage to the validity of the agreement raised in the manner now. The onus was entirely on the State to show that the agreement was signed by an unauthorised person and the Executive Engineer was not so authorised. The agreement purports to be in the name of the Governor of Bihar. Thus, having worked upon the basis of the agreements, in my view, it is no longer open to the State to raise an objection that is sought to be done in this appeal either in relation to the arbitration proceeding or the agreements leading to the arbitration. Further, it was not necessary to state in express words that the Executive Engineer was authorised to sign the agreement by expressly promulgated ORDER :in that behalf or by formal notifications. The special authority may validly be given in respect of a particular contract or contracts by the Governor to an officer other than the officer notified under the rules (See AIR 1962 113 : Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of India). In the case of Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram and others ( 1954 SCR 817 ) it was held as follows :- "That the contention that the contracts in question were void because the Union Government could not be sued by reason of Art. 299 (1) of the Constitution as the contracts were not expressed to be made by the President was without force because this was the type of case to which S. 230 (3) of the Indian Contract Act would apply." This shows that the objection of the appellant on this ground is untenable. In this connection, another decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1972 SC 915 (Union of India and others v. N.K. Private Limited and another) was also relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant but since he has not been able to show that the Executive Engineer was not authorised to enter into the contract on behalf of the Governor, this decision does not apply. Similarly, the decision reported in AIR 1974 SC 1579 Jaikishan Dass Mull v. Luchhiminarain Kanoria & Co.) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant has no application to the instant case because this decision proceeds on the finding that the contract itself was void in law and, therefore, the arbitration clauses also stand effaced. As I have already held, the agreements by their being executed by the Executive Engineer are not void, hence this decision has no application. Further, the question of there being one arbitration proceeding in a dispute arising out of four agreements, this objection is also affected adversely against the appellant due to his participation in the arbitration proceeding without any objection. J, therefore, hold that the appellants are precluded from raising any objection, procedural or otherwise, on the aforesaid points and any other point that they have raised due to their participation in the proceeding without demur. Having run the gamut of the entire proceeding in a hope of a favourable decision, the appellants cannot raise this issue having lost their opportunity by participation. 11. Coming to the question of joint award arising out of different agreements, in my view in law there is no such bar. It is true that section 20 of the Act and other sections of the Arbitration Act also use the expression 'agreement' in singular which indicates, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that dispute arising out of one agreement is a dispute in itself. This, however, does not mean that several disputes arising out of several agreements cannot be disposed of in one arbitration proceeding particularly, when it relates to the same transaction as in this case. In this appeal, particularly, the agreements arise out of a single tender and thus can really be classified as a single dispute arising out of a single agreement. In this appeal, particularly, the agreements arise out of a single tender and thus can really be classified as a single dispute arising out of a single agreement. Had these agreements been in the name of different parties, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the situation might have been different but both the parties being same in all the agreements and the agreements relating to a single tender, I see no legal disability in their being disposed of by a single arbitration proceeding because the totality of the claims had to be examined for the purposes of giving an award. This apart, this objection is seeing the light of the day for the first time in this Court. I, therefore, do not find any ground to efface the award on this ground. 12 In regard to the matter arising out of claim for compensation for idle labourers and cross-claim of the State, it is difficult for me to say anything after having held that the award is a bald one. Had the two grounds been dealt with the validity of the award could have been examined, and the matter would have been dealt with. But since it is not possible for me to faith on whether this matter did form the basis of the award, I cannot enter into this objection justifiably. In any event the claim of the applicant respondent as submitted by Mr. Rajgarbia was for Rs. 12 lacs and odd and, therefore; even if those items have been considered by deducting them, the result, perhaps, would be the same. Then the arbitrator having granted only five lacs out of 12 lacs and odd, as submitted by Mr. Rajgarhia, he might not have gone into this for the purposes of fixing the figure awarded by him. This point is mentioned by me hypothetically because as I have said, I cannot delve into nebulous. 13. Lastly, coming to point nos. (V) and (vi), the learned Counsel for the appellants also assailed the award on the ground of absence of a notice as required by section 14 (1) (2) and (3) of the Act. This section reads as follows :- "14. 13. Lastly, coming to point nos. (V) and (vi), the learned Counsel for the appellants also assailed the award on the ground of absence of a notice as required by section 14 (1) (2) and (3) of the Act. This section reads as follows :- "14. Award to be signed and filed-(1) When the arbitrators or empire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award. (2) The arbitrations or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award any of the costs and charges of filing the award cause the award of a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. (3) Where the arbitrators or empire state a special case under Cl. (b) of See. 13, the Court, after giving notice to the parties and hearing them, shall pronounce its opinion thereon and such opinion shall be added to, and shall form part of, the award." According to the learned Counsel, no notice, particularly, provided under the Act, under the clauses above-quoted, was served upon the State Government. In my view, this point becomes really academic if the objection filed by the party is within the time prescribed. In this dispute, the appellant's objection was held to be within time. A subsequent objection however, was held to be beyond time but according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, this was not a new objection and it was only a clarification of the previous one. Therefore, in this regard also, the question of absence of notice becomes academic and 1 explain further, when the first objection was filed within time, there was no reason why the second objection should also not have been filed within that time, The fact that that objection was filed after the due date does not indicate absence of notice anywhere when the earlier objection was within time. Therefore, there is no merit in these two points also. 15. In the result, therefore, I am unable to interfere with the award and I have no hesitation in dismissing this appeal with costs. It is accordingly dismissed.