JUDGMENT 1. This is a petition filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, Svt. 2002 for setting aside the award dated 29th of January, 1997 passed by the sole arbitrator, Sh. S.K. Rao. 2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: 3. A contract agreement being CA No. CEUZ-28 of 1987-88 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent for provision of married accommodation for JCOs/HAVs at Jammu. Disputes having arisen between the parties, a request for adjudication of the same, was made in terms of Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract governing the parties. 4. Acting upon the request of the petitioner-firm, the appointing authority i.e., the Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters, New Delhi vide his letter dated 19.08.1994 appointed Sh. S.K. Rao as the sole arbitrator in the case. In the letter of appointment, the appointing authority initially mentioned vide Appendix-A to the letter only the claims of the Union of India, which were as under: CLAIMS OF UNION OF INDIA S.No.Brief Description of ClaimAmount in Rupees 1.Extra expenditure to be incurred in getting the incomplete work completed at the risk and cost of the defaulting contractor.Rs. 31,07,028/- 2.Rectification of defective works.Rs. 1,692/- 3.Compensation for delay in completion of work.Rs. 5,39,063/- 4.Cost of reference.Rs. 20,000/- 5. Since the claims of the contractor were not referred, the same were subsequently referred to the arbitrator for adjudication as Appendix-B to communication dated 5th of May, 1995. As many as 14 claims formed a part of Appendix-B, which were as under: CLAIMS of M/s Balwant Singh & sons-petitioner/contractor. S.No.Brief Description of ClaimsAmount in Rupees 1.Non-payment of work done after the last RAR.2,00,000/- 2.Cost of material lying at site after incorporation in the work.10,00,000/- 3.Cost of labour huts, site office furniture, water tanks etc.80,000/- 4.Shuttering plates, mixer, vibrator, electric meters, steel bailies battens, planks drilling machines, MS Nails, welding material.7,00,000/- 5.Release of retention money.1,50,000/- 6.Retention on stores2,00,000/- 7.Withdrawal of compensation.5,39,063/- 8.Damages on account of non-payment of dues and grant of extensions in time and illegal termination of the contract agreement.7,30,000/- 9. Non-payment of shuttering to plinth beams50,000/- 10.Non-payment of conduit pipe laid in roofs of 44 quarters.10,000/-. 11.Wrong recovery of shuttering while omitting facia less than 60 CM.25,000/- 12.Cost of reference to arbitration.20,000/- 13.Interest @18%on due payment.Not indicated. 14.Waival of risk on cost amount due to illegal cancellation of the contract.31,076,028/- 6. Non-payment of shuttering to plinth beams50,000/- 10.Non-payment of conduit pipe laid in roofs of 44 quarters.10,000/-. 11.Wrong recovery of shuttering while omitting facia less than 60 CM.25,000/- 12.Cost of reference to arbitration.20,000/- 13.Interest @18%on due payment.Not indicated. 14.Waival of risk on cost amount due to illegal cancellation of the contract.31,076,028/- 6. The arbitrator entered upon the reference and published his final award on 29th of January, 1997 and filed the same in this court. 7. Objections have been filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, samvat, 2002 against the award and this court vide order dated 09.04.2003 framed the following three issues: (i) Whether Arbitrator has mis-conducted himself as well as in the arbitral proceedings? (ii) Whether the award suffers from any error of law and fact apparent on its face. If so, what is the effect? (iii) Relief. 8. Evidence was filed by way of affidavits by the parties. 9. The award has been questioned on two grounds, (a) that the award in question was vague and uncertain and, therefore, incapable of execution and (b) that the arbitrator could not have permitted fresh claims to be entertained beyond the claims and disputes referred by the competent authority, forming Appendix-A to the order of reference by the Chief Engineer concerned. VAGUE AWARD 10. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Learned counsel for the contractor/objector urged that not only was the award vague and uncertain but it was also contrary to the express terms of arbitration clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract, which was applicable to the contract agreement between the parties. 11. It was stated that while the arbitrator in his award has reflected that claims No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 19 had been allowed partially, he had failed to quantify as to the precise amount, which was being allowed by the arbitrator as against each of the claims by the contractor. For example as against claim No. 1 of the contractor/objector, the arbitrator in his award held as under: 11.1.4.- It is an admitted fact that contractor executed certain amount of work after payment of last RAR. I uphold that all the quantum of work executed by the contractor upto the date of cancellation of contract shall be payable to the contractor. I uphold that all the quantum of work executed by the contractor upto the date of cancellation of contract shall be payable to the contractor. The claim is partly sustained and the amount awarded against this claim will be accounted for by me while awarding amount against Claim No. 1 of the Union of India. 12. In regard to claim No. 2 of the contractor, the arbitrator in his award held as under: 11.2.3.-........I uphold that payment is due to the contractor for the material lying at site. There is some strength in contractor's contention that the pricing of the material was on lower side and the reasonability of rates quoted by the risk and cost of the contractor will be examined separately considering this factor also. The claim is partly sustained. The amount awarded against this claim will be accounted for by me while awarding amount against Claim No. 1 of Union of India. 13. It needs to be mentioned that the arbitrator appears to have adopted a similar language in regard to Claim Nos. 3 and 4. Although learned counsel for the contractor had urged that award in regard to claim Nos. 6 and 19 were equally vague, on a perusal of the award, as regards these two claims, it appears that there is no vagueness or uncertainty about the same whereas, claim No. 6 was for release of retention money amounting to Rs. 1,44,572/-, which claim was sustained in toto in favour of the claimant and claim No. 19 was for refund of additional security amounting to Rs, 15,000/-, which was also allowed in favour of the claimant. There was no further quantification required by the arbitrator since they were specific amounts in the shape of retention money and additional security, which was deposited by the claimant. 14. For facility of reference, Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract is reproduced hereunder: "70 The Arbitrator shall give his award within a period of six months from the date of his entering on the reference or within the extended time as the case may be on all matters referred to him and shall indicate his findings, along with sums awarded separately on each individual item of dispute. 15. 15. Learned counsel for the contractor urged that the failure on the part of the arbitrator to quantify the claims, which appears to have been partially allowed in favour of the contractor amounted to passing a non-speaking award, which was Contrary to the express terms of the Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract, which required the arbitrator to indicate his findings along with sums awarded separately on each individual item of dispute. 16. It is not out of place to mention here that the arbitrator in his award had set-off the undetermined amounts, which were awarded in favour of the contractor against the undetermined amount awarded in favour of the Union of India and held the Union of India entitled to a net amount of Rs. 34,01,960/- 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner/contractor has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court titled Anand Brothers Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 212 . 18. In the case (supra), the arbitrator's award was not supported by any reason although the arbitrator had in the column captioned "findings" made comments like "sustained", "partly sustained", "not sustained". The High Court in the case (supra) had set aside the award of the arbitrator and remitted the matter back to him for fresh determination of the disputes between the parties by holding that the expression "finding" appearing in Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract implied something more than the mere recording of a conclusion by the arbitrator. Incidentally even in that case, the Court was dealing with Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract as it is in the present case. 19. The Apex Court in the case (supra) held that the High Court was justified in setting aside the award made by the arbitrator by holding in paragraph 14 as under; 14. It is trite that a finding can be both; & finding of fact or a finding of law. It may even be a finding on a mixed question of law and fact In the case of a finding on a legal issue the Arbitrator may on facts that are proved or admitted explore his options and lay bare the process by which he arrives at any such finding. It may even be a finding on a mixed question of law and fact In the case of a finding on a legal issue the Arbitrator may on facts that are proved or admitted explore his options and lay bare the process by which he arrives at any such finding. It is only when the conclusion is supported by reasons on which it is based that one can logically describe the process as tantamount to recording a finding. It is immaterial whether the reasons given in support of the conclusion are sound or erroneous. That is because a conclusion supported by reasons would constitute a "finding" no matter the conclusion or the reasons in support of the same may themselves be erroneous on facts or in law. It may then be an erroneous finding but it would nonetheless be a finding. What is important is that a finding presupposes application of mind. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of the mind; mind in turn is best disclosed by recording reasons. That is the soul of every adjudicatory process which affects the rights of the parties. This is true also in the case of a finding of fact where too the process of reasoning must be disclosed in order that it is accepted as a finding in the sense the expression is used in Clause 70. 20. Applying the ratio of the aforementioned judgment to the facts of the case at hand, it can be seen that the arbitrator had, in his award, failed to quantify the amount it was allowing against each of the claim Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the contractor. As to what extent was the arbitrator allowing the claims No. 1 to 4 and for what amount had not at all been dealt with by the arbitrator in the award. The award for that reason is clearly vague and contrary to the express terms of Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract. CLAIMS IN EXCESS OF REFERENCE 21. It was urged that whereas, the Chief Engineer had referred claims amounting to Rs. 36,67,783/ for the four claims forming Appendix-A to the Chief Engineer's order of reference dated 19.8.1994, the arbitrator had illegally permitted the Union of India to inflate the claims to Rs. 53,00,000/-. approximately, which was beyond the scope of the reference made to him and thus, impermissible in law. 22. 36,67,783/ for the four claims forming Appendix-A to the Chief Engineer's order of reference dated 19.8.1994, the arbitrator had illegally permitted the Union of India to inflate the claims to Rs. 53,00,000/-. approximately, which was beyond the scope of the reference made to him and thus, impermissible in law. 22. Learned counsel for the Union of India urged that even the contractor had revised his claims before the arbitrator, which was equally impermissible in law. 23. Reliance was placed upon Natwar Lal Shamal Das and Company v. Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited, 1982 AIR (Del) 44 and Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. M/s-Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley, AIR 1977 SC 2014 . 24. The Apex court in Orissa Mining Corporation's case (supra) held in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under: "10. On a reading of the plaint, we are satisfied that the claim for transporting the iron ore for the extra distance is limited to Rs. 68,582/- and the whole claim after including the claim for construction of the road is confined only to Rs. 93,582/-. The petitioner having disallowed Rs. 25,000/- being the claim for construction of the road should have confined his award only to Rs. 68,582. The claim of additional Rs. 68,582/- before the arbitrator was clearly beyond the order of reference which incorporated the reliefs prayed for in the plaint by the respondent herein. It would have been different if the entire claim relating to transport of the iron ore for the extra distance was made without specifying the amount of claim. When the amount has been specified in the plaint and when the reference is confined to the claim made in the plaint, the arbitrator Would have to restrict his award only to the claim. We are satisfied that in this case the arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction in embarking on the claim that, was the first time put forward before him by the respondent. There is therefore an error apparent on the face of the award. 11. Section 20(1) of the Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940, provides that where a difference has arisen and where any person have entered into an arbitration agreement they may apply to the court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the agreement relates, that the agreement be filed in court. 11. Section 20(1) of the Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940, provides that where a difference has arisen and where any person have entered into an arbitration agreement they may apply to the court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the agreement relates, that the agreement be filed in court. Sub-section (4) to section 20 provides that the court shall order the agreement to be filed, and shall make an order of reference to the arbitrator appointed by the parties. When an agreement is filed in court and order of reference is made then the claim as a result of the order .of reference limited to a particular relief and the arbitrator cannot enlarge the scope of the reference and entertain fresh claims without a further order of reference from the court..." 25. In view of the aforementioned settled position of law, it was impermissible for the arbitrator to have permitted the Union of India or the contractor to improve upon or revise their claims from the one, which were earlier referred to by the order of Chief Engineer, which formed Appendix A and B to the order of reference. 26. For the reasons mentioned above, the award dated 29.1.1997 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the arbitrator for fresh determination of disputes between the parties. While doing so, the arbitrator shall not entertain any claims beyond what was referred by the Chief Engineer forming Appendix A and B to the order of reference dated 19.8.1994. The arbitrator shall give reasons for the ultimate conclusion, which may be arrived at in regard to the disputes referred to him. This would be in conclusion with clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract. In case the arbitrator earlier nominated, is for any reasons, unable to take up the assignment for adjudication of the disputes, the respondent shall within four weeks from today, appoint a substitute arbitrator, who shall enter upon the reference and conclude the proceedings at the earliest. 27. Disposed of accordingly along with connected applications. Petition disposed of