Judgment N. Paul Vasanthakumar, C.J.—This L.P. appeal is preferred against the order made in AA No.131/1991 dated 16.10.2007, making the award of the Arbitrator dated 30.01.1991 Rule of the Court. 2. A reference was made for arbitration for the claims made by the appellant containing seven claims. Similarly the respondent herein submitted 33 claims. All the claims made by the Union of India were rejected by the Arbitrator and insofar as the claims made by the contractor are concerned, some were partly and some are fully sustained and some of them are rejected. The details are stated hereunder:— Claims of Union of India:— S. No. Brief Description of Claim, amount claimed Findings 1. Extra expenditure on getting the work completed at the risk and cost of the Respondent. (Amount of claim Rs. 36,50,204.36) Claim not sustained. 2. On account of the losses suffered by the Govt. on account of delayed completion of work. (Amount of claim Rs. 14,05,920.00) Claim not sustained. 3. On account of compensation for delay. (Amount of claim Rs. 3,73,577.20) Claim not sustained. 4. On account of site examination of work / rectification of defects / deviation of work done by the Respondent and other outstanding recoveries. (Amount of claim Rs. 88,748.97) Outside jurisdiction. 5. On account of non-return of over-issued stores by the respondent. (Amount of claim Rs. 10,66,113.42) Claim not sustained. 6. On account of over-payment made to the respondent. (The claim is part of Claim No.1) Nil 7. Cost of reference (Amount of claim: Rs. 10,000.00) (Outside jurisdiction) 8. On account of cost of reference. (Amount of claim Rs. 10,000.00) The claimants to meet their own cost. Claims of contractor M/S Capital Construction Enterprises S. No. Brief Description of Claim, amount claimed Findings/amount awarded of the claim 2. For partly soft, partly hard and dense soil and partly soft/disintegrated rock and partly hard rock met with at site. (Amount of claim Rs. 1,33,207.64) Claim sustained. Rs. 1,33,207.64 3. For provision of labour huts/sheds at Pandrethan in addition to the same at BB Cantt. Work site. (Amount of claim Rs. 1,84,336.26) Claim sustained. Rs. 1,84,336.26 4. For not giving electric connection AT Pandrethan ground site (Amount of claim Rs. 1,78,334.00) Claim partly sustained. Rs. 1,00,000.00 5. Non issue of water by Respondent at Pandrethan ground and inadequate water supply at BB Cantt forcing the claimant to transport water by trucks. (Amount of claim Rs. Work site. (Amount of claim Rs. 1,84,336.26) Claim sustained. Rs. 1,84,336.26 4. For not giving electric connection AT Pandrethan ground site (Amount of claim Rs. 1,78,334.00) Claim partly sustained. Rs. 1,00,000.00 5. Non issue of water by Respondent at Pandrethan ground and inadequate water supply at BB Cantt forcing the claimant to transport water by trucks. (Amount of claim Rs. 5,70,000.00) Claim partly sustained. Rs. 3,70,000.00 6. Transportation of Cement firstly from MES storeyard to BB Cantt and again from BB Cantt to Pandrethan ground. (Amount of claim: Rs. 30,6,01.00) Claim sustained. Rs. 30,601.00 8. Cartage of hollow blocks from Pandrethan ground to worksite at BB Cantt. area. (Amount of claim Rs. 2,87,746.05) Claim sustained Rs. 2,87,746.05 9. Due to Pandrethan area becoming slippery / slushy after every rain and making it extremely difficult for vehicles to ply over the area. (Amount of claim Rs. 69,382.00) Claim partly sustained. Rs. 35,000.00. 10. For damage caused due to flooding of Pandrethan ground area as a result of flash floods in river Jehlum in August, 1976. (Amount of claim Rs. 76,440.00) Claim partly sustained. Rs. 38,000.00. 11. For loss of profit by preparing minus DO for omission of such Schedule B items which involved hardly any fabrication. (Amount of claim Rs. 34,544.28) Claim sustained. Rs. 34,544.28 12. Providing RCC box on the rear of cupboards in ground floor and provision of flat iron clamp stiffeners to block masonry in first and second floors. Claim sustained. Rs. 55,889.53 13. Abnormal delay in releasing RAR payments and making restricted RAR payments. (Amount of claim Rs. 55,882.92) Claim partly sustained. Rs. 41,912.00 15. Flush pointing on block masonry extremely raking out joints both internally and externally and switching over to payment specifications. (Amount of claim Rs. 1,64,336.13) Claim sustained. Rs. 1,64,336.13 18. For repeated enhancement of wages paid to labourers on account of increase in the minimum fair wages payable to labour. (Amount of claim Rs. 1,24,335.00) Claim sustained. Rs. 1,24,335.00 19. For non payment due to the claimants after        payment of RAR No.25 (Amount of claim Rs. 5,54,733.27) Claim sustained. Rs. 5,54,733.27 21. For un-contractual suspension of work for 5 to 6 months, alleged over payment of Rs. 5.23 lacs. Forcing Claimant to abandon the work, consequently loss of profit for the residual work. (Amount of Claim Rs. 53,790.80) Rs. For non payment due to the claimants after        payment of RAR No.25 (Amount of claim Rs. 5,54,733.27) Claim sustained. Rs. 5,54,733.27 21. For un-contractual suspension of work for 5 to 6 months, alleged over payment of Rs. 5.23 lacs. Forcing Claimant to abandon the work, consequently loss of profit for the residual work. (Amount of Claim Rs. 53,790.80) Rs. 53,790.80 22, 23, 26 For loss of reputation, good-will, market credibility, mental torture, adverse effect on claimant’s physical health and agony caused on account of alleged over-payment and humiliation caused due to respondent’s refusal to look into claimant’s details showing OR’s yardstick and details showing underpayment in lieu of overpayment as alleged by Respondent and humiliation caused due to Respondent’s un-contractual instructions to go to staff Court of Inquiry and show them the details. (Amount of claim Rs. 15,56,000.00) Claim partly sustained. Rs. 5,00,000.00 25, 31 For premature encashment of Bank Guarantees by Respondent and for non-payment of over- draft allowed by Bankers, so as to satisfy the illegal demand of alleged over payment, seriously affecting whatever reputation and credit worthiness was still left in the financial market. (Amount of Claim Rs. 20,47,000.00) Claim sustained for payment of simple interest at 18% p.a. on Rs. 3,30,000.00. 3. The arbitration award was challenged before the learned Single Judge by raising various contentions including the ground that the arbitration award being a non-speaking award and there being no clause in the agreement for granting interest and the Central Interest Act being not applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as such, interest could not have been granted. The learned Single Judge upheld the award by stating that Arbitrator being the sole judge appointed by the parties themselves for adjudicating their case, in his sole discretion is entitled to make a speaking or non-speaking award and if the agreement does not require the Arbitrator to pass a reasoned award, there is no legal obligation upon the Arbitrator to give reasons for allowing or dis-allowing a claim. 4. Since the said issue is principally raised in this appeal, which was heavily emphasized by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we have decided to consider this issue at the first instance as the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant can be gone into only if the award is sustainable after the first hurdle is removed. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant on the date of hearing of the matter on 19.12.2016, had submitted that a similar matter was considered by this Court in CIMA No.131/2005 (M/S Techno Trading Co. v. Union of India decided on 14.04.2016) wherein the arbitration award dated 16.08.1994, which was passed without giving reasons, was set aside by following the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 2014(9) SCC 212 = AIR 2015 SC 125 (M/s Anand Brothers P. Ltd. v. Union of India and ors). Mr. S.D. Sharma learned counsel appearing for the respondent at that time prayed for time to go through the said judgment and make submissions. Thereafter the matter was listed on 14.02.2017 and the learned counsel for the respondent failed to appear hence the case was adjourned to 16.02.2017 and today also the learned counsel for the respondent chose not to appear. Hence this Court considered the matter on merits. 6. In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court this Court decided to peruse the award as to whether the award dated 30.01.1991 is speaking order or not and the stand of the respondent before the learned Single Judge that the Arbitrator was not bound to give reasons for rejecting the claim of the appellant or give reasons for sustaining the claims of the respondent in full or in part. 7. In the award the claims which were fully sustained or partly sustained or not sustained are mentioned. No reason at all is mentioned as to how each of the claim made by the appellant is not sustainable and how the claims of the respondent are sustainable in full or in part and other claims not sustained. It is relevant to note that insofar as the appellant is concerned, the claims which were rejected are worth more than 65 lakhs and the claims sustained in part or in full in favour of the respondent are worth more than 24 lakhs. Thus in effect no reason is mentioned to reject the claims or sustaining the claims as stated supra. 8. Thus in effect no reason is mentioned to reject the claims or sustaining the claims as stated supra. 8. The effect of non-speaking award was considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2014(9) SCC 212 = AIR 2015 SC 125 (M/s Anand Brothers P. Ltd. v. Union of India and ors) and this Court, as the learned senior counsel who appeared in the said CIMA (CIMA No.131/2005) fairly accepted the said proposition and the award was set aside and the Union of India was directed to appoint the Arbitrator within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and the Arbitrator was directed to enter upon the reference and conclude the proceedings within six months. The said award was also passed on 16.08.1994 i.e. as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940. The applicability of the General Conditions, particularly Clause 70 in respect of the contract work awarded to the respondent is not in dispute. Clause 70 mandates indication of the findings by the arbitrator along with the sums awarded separately on each individual item of dispute. The said Clause reads thus:— “70. Arbitration—AII disputes, between the parties to the Contract (other than those for which the decision of the C.W.E. or any other person is by the Contract expressed to be final and finding) shall, after written notice by either party to the Contract to the other of them, be referred to the sole arbitration of an Engineer Officer to be appointed by the authority mentioned in the tender documents. Unless both parties agree in writing such references shall not take place until after the completion or alleged completion of the Works or termination or determination of the Contract under Condition Nos.55, 56 and 57 hereof. Provided that in the event of abandonment of the Words or cancellation of the Contract under Condition Nos.52, 53 or 54 hereof, such reference shall not take place until alternative arrangements have been finalized by the Government to get the Works completed by or through any other Contractor or Contractors or Agency or Agencies. If the Arbitrator so appointed resigns his appointment or vacates his office or is unable or unwilling to act due to any reason whatsoever, the authority appointing him may appoint a new Arbitrator to act in his place. If the Arbitrator so appointed resigns his appointment or vacates his office or is unable or unwilling to act due to any reason whatsoever, the authority appointing him may appoint a new Arbitrator to act in his place. The Arbitrator shall be deemed to have entered on the reference on the date he issues notice to both the parties, asking them to submit to him their statement of the case and pleadings in defence. The Arbitrator may, from time to time with the consent of the parties, enlarge the time upto but not exceeding one year from the date of his entering on the reference, for making and publishing the award. 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. The venue of Arbitration shall be such place or places as may be fixed by the Arbitrator in his sole discretion. The Award of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both parties to the Contract.” 9. The said clause was specifically dealt with in the above referred judgment by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 it is held thus:— “15 The above exposition matches even the contextual interpretation of Clause 70 which provides a mechanism for adjudication of disputes between the parties and not only requires the Arbitrator to indicate the amount he is awarding in regard to each item of claim but also the “findings on each one of such items”. The underlying purpose of making such a provision in the arbitration clause governing the parties, obviously was to ensure that the Arbitrator while adjudicating upon the disputes as a Judge chosen by the parties gives reasons for the conclusions that he may arrive at. The expression ‘finding’ appearing in Clause 70, therefore, needs to be so construed as to promote that object and include within it not only the ultimate conclusion which the Arbitrator arrives at but also the process of reasoning by which he does so. Clause 70 could not, in our opinion, have meant to be only a wooden or lifeless formality of indicating whether the claim is accepted or rejected. Clause 70 could not, in our opinion, have meant to be only a wooden or lifeless formality of indicating whether the claim is accepted or rejected. Any such statement would have made no qualitative addition to the adjudication of the claim for the arbitrator would award a sum of money but withhold the reasons for the same. .................................................................................................................. 16. In the case at hand the Arbitrator’s award was admittedly unsupported by any reason, no matter the Arbitrator had in the column captioned ‘findings’ made comments like ‘sustained’, ‘partly sustained’, ‘not sustained’. The High Court was, therefore, justified in setting aside the award made by the Arbitrator and remitting the matter to him for making of a fresh award.” 10. In this case the Arbitrator appointed by the Union of India retired in the year 1991 and one of the contentions raised by the appellant is that just ten days prior to the date of retirement of the Arbitrator the award was passed without giving any reason. In such circumstances the award of the Arbitrator dated 30.01.1991 as affirmed by the learned Single Judge in AA No.131/1991 by order dated 16.10.2007 is set aside and the Union of India is directed to appoint an Arbitrator and make reference within a period of four weeks and the Arbitrator to be appointed is directed to conclude the arbitration proceedings in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of reference. No costs.