al No 31 of 1966
Appeal from the judgment gad decree dated December 5 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal from Order No 260 of 1952
RM Mehta and SP Nayar for the appellant
AK Sen SV Gupte and SS Shukla for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J
The respondent Jai Narain Misra is a building contractor
On September 2 1944 he entered into a contract No ES 2944 with the Government of India represented by the Chief Engineer Central Command for the construction of additional quarters at TP 2 Kanpur
The contract contained an arbitration clause
Disputes between the parties relating to the contract were referred to Col HT Faithful
The arbitrator made his award on May 19 1947
On November 15 1947 the respondent made an application for modifying the award and for remitting it to the arbitrator for re consideration
On January 5 1948 he filed additional objections
By his order dated May 26 1952 the Second Civil Judge Kanpur dismissed the objections and pronounced judgment according to the award
The appellant filed an appeal against the order under section 39 of the 
By an order dated December 5 1962 the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the award on the ground that it was vague and uncertain
The present appeal has been filed by the Union of India on the strength of a certificate granted by the High Court
It appears that the respondent submitted 23 items of claim to the arbitrator
By his letter dated May 6 1947 he  added 6 more items of claim
The Union of India made a counter claim
The 4Sup
CI69 5 590 arbitrator was thus required to decide 29 disputed items of claim and the counter claim
The award recited that certain differences between the parties in respect of contract No ES
2944 of 1944 had been referred to the arbitrator for his decision and that a final award was being made of and concerning the matters referred to him
The relevant part of the award was as follows  I award and direct that the following sums be paid by the respondent to the claimant
Rupees twenty two thousand two hundred and ninety two annas five being the amount due to the claimant as calculated by the respondent
2 Rupees six thousand being the amount of security deposit paid by the claimant and now in possession of the respondent
3 Rupees seventy nine thousand three hundred and thirty nine
The total amount to be paid by the respondent to the claimant is therefore one lakh seven thousand six hundred and thirty one annas five
Each party to the dispute shall bear its own costs including the cost of the stamp duty on this award
 The High Court held that the award suffered from a patent ambiguity for the following reasons It was not clear why the arbitrator awarded the first item of Rs 222925 and the 3rd item of Rs 79339 separately
The arbitrator found only the first item of Rs 222925 to be due to the respondent it was not clear whether he intended also to award the 3rd item of Rs 79339 to the respondent
As the dispute consisted of 29 items of claims and a counter claim the arbitrator should have made an award in respect of all the items separately or in combination or should have made a lump award in respect of all the items
We are unable to accept this line of reasoning
The award on the face of it professes to be of and concerning all matters submitted to the arbitrator
In respect of all such matters the arbitrator awarded a sum cf Rs 1076315 to the respondent
This amount was made up of three sums separately mentioned in the award
It was not the case of the respondent in the Trial Court that the award was uncertain or not intelligible
The objection was taken for the first time before the High Court
On the record there is nothing to show that the award was not intelligible to the parties
The Court leans towards the construction that the award is certain
Prima facie the award is good and it is for the defendant 591 10 show that it is uncertain
Per Jervis CJ in Mays  Anr
vs Cannel1
There is no ambiguity about the first and the third items of the award
The uncontradicted evidence of section Choudhry the witness for the Government is Item No 1 of the award is that which was calculated by us in the government bill
Item No 3 is in respect of the remaining claim of the plaintiff Item No 1 thus represents the sum admitted by the government to be due to the respondent and item No 3 represents the additional sum found by the arbitrator to be due to him
The arbitrator is not bound to give an award on each point
He can make his award on the whole case see Ghulam Khan vs Mohammad Hassan 1
An arbitrator may award one sum generally in respect of all money claims submitted to him unless the submission requires him to award separately on some one or more of them see Whiteworth vs Hulse3
The arbitrator can lawfully make an award of a sum admitted to be due and a lump sum in respect of the remaining claim
As the final award favour of the respondent professes to be made of and concerning all the matters referred to him it must be presumed that in making it the arbitrator has taken into consideration all the claims and counter claims see Harrison vs Creswick 4 Jewell vs Christie 5
We hold that the award is a final and certain determination of all the disputes referred
The arbitrator made an award in respect of the second item under some misapprehension
The security deposit of Rs 6000 had been returned to the respondent and there was no dispute about it before the arbitrator
In the circumstances the arbitrator had no authority to award Rs 6000 to the respondent on account of the security deposit
This part of the award is clearly separable and may be struck out
Moreover the award of Rs 6000 is to the advantage of the respondent and the Court usually declines to set aside an award at the instance of a party who has not suffered any injury by the error see Narsingh Narain Singh vs
Ajodhya Prasad Singh6
We find also that the award of Rs 6000 is now of no consequence
After the award was made the respondent received a sum of Rs 1005947 in full settlement of the award presumably after giving the government credit for the sum of Rs 6000 already received by him
We therefore hold that there is no ground for setting aside the award
The award is not vague andor uncertain and does not suffer from any other infirmity
1 24 Law Journal QB 41 Cal 167 186 PC
3 1866 LR I exhibit 251
4  15 6  113 592 Mr Mehta also contended that 1 the appeal before the High Court was not maintainable under sections 17 and 39 of the and 2 the respondent having received payment in full settlement of the award was estopped from challenging it
We do not find it necessary to decide these points in view of our conclusion that the award is not liable to be set aside
The appeal is allowed with costs in this Court and the High Court
The order of the High Court is set aside and the order and decree passed by the Second Civil Judge Kanpur is restored
GC Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondent a building contractor entered into a contract with the Government of India for the construction of certain flats
On disputes arising they were referred to an arbitrator
the arbitrator made an award and directed certain sums to be paid by the Union of India to tile respondent
Rupees twenty two thousand two hundred and ninety two annas five were to be paid as the amount due to the respondent as calculated by the Union of India
Rupees six thousand were to be paid as the amount of security deposit made by the respondent with the Union of India
The third item was mentioned as Rupees seventy nine thousand three hundred and thirty nine
total amount payable was mentioned as Rupees one lakh seven thousand six hundred and thirty one annas five
The respondent made an application for modifying the award and for remitting it to the arbitrator for reconsideration
The Second Civil Judge Kanpur dismissed the objections and pronounced judgment according to the award
The appellant filed an appeal against the order under section 39 of the 
The High Court allowed  the appeal and set aside the award on the ground that it was vague and uncertain
According to the High Court it was not clear why the arbitrator awarded the first item of Rs 222925 and the third item of Rs 79339 separately
Since the arbitrator found only the first item of Rs 229225to be due to the respondent the High Court did not find it clear whether he intended also to award the 3rd item of Rs 79339 to the respondent
As the dispute related to 29 items of claims and counter claims the arbitrator according to High Court should have made an award in respect of all the items separately or in combination or should have made a lump sum award in respect of nil the items
Against the order of the High Court the Union of India appealed to this Court with certificate
HELD The reasoning of the
High Court could not be accepted
i The award on the face of it professed to be of and concerning all matters submitted for arbitration
In respect of all such matters the arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs 1076316 to the respondent
This amount was made of three sums separately mentioned in the award
On the record there was nothing to show that the award was not intelligible to the parties
590 G The court leans towards the construction that the award is certain
the evidence item No 1 represented the sum admitted the sum due to respondent and item No 3 represented the additional sum found by the arbitrator to be due to him
590 H ii The arbitrator is not bound to give an award on each point
He can give his award on the whole case
An arbitrator may award one sum generally in respect of all money claims submitted to him
unless the submission requires him to award separately on some one or more of them
589 The arbitrator can lawfully make an award of a sum admitted to be due and a lump sum in respect of the remaining claim
As the final award in favour of the respondent professed to be made of and concerning all the matters referred to him it must be presumed that in making it the arbitrator had taken into consideration all the claims and counter claims
The award must be held to be a final and certain determination of all the disputes referred
591 C D iii The mention of the second item of Rupees six thousand in the award was a mistake
This part of the award being clearly separable must be struck out
The award of the sum of Rupees six thousand was to the advantage of the respondent and the court could not set aside an award at the instance of a party who had not suffered any injury
591 F Mays and Anr
vs Cannel 24 Law Journal QB 41 45 Ghulam Khan vs Mohammad Hassan ILR  186 PC Whiteworth vs Hulse 1866 LR 1 exhibit 251 Harrison vs Creswick   Jewell vs Christie and Narsingh Narain Singh vs Ajodhya Prasad Singh  113 referred to