IMPORTANT POINT
Where arbitrator decided only on the properties in India referred to him, not considering the documents about properties left in Pakistan is not either a misconduct or nor an infirmity on the face of award.

ORDER

A.M Ahmadi, J. - Even though the dispute between the parties came La this Court from an initial order passed under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court realising that the dispute was between close relatives in respect of their interest in certain properties which were also the subject matter in a Civil Suit No. 434178 (Remand) of the Court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi, advised the parties to have the same resolved through an Arbitrator. On the parties agreeing, this Court passed an order on September 5, 1986 recording the agreement to refer the dispute to arbitration and appointed Mr. Justice V.D. Misra, retired Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, as the Sole Arbitrator. The parties had agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each with the Arbitrator to meet with this expenses and remuneration subject to further directions that may be made in that behalf. It was further directed that the learned Arbitrator will render a speaking award within four months. In view of the said it agreement, the appeal was allowed and the High Courts impugned order was set aside. It appears that thereafter one of the parties, namely, Jagdish Chander Bhatia, did not deposit the expenses with the Arbitrator and raised objection in regard to the arbitration proceedings on the plea that the property in dispute was proposed to be resumed by the Union of India. 1n the meantime, it appears that the sole Arbitrator passed away and in his place Mr. Justice M.S. Gujrat, retired Chief Justice of the High Court of Sikkim, was appointed the Sole Arbitrator. This Court did not approve of the conduct of Jagdish Chander Bhatia in not depositing the amount and in - trying to avoid adjudication of the dispute through arbitration. After this order was passed on October 12, 1990 by which a further sum of Rs, 8,000/- was directed to be deposited with the Arbitrator, subject to the Arbitrator deciding who should bear the cost, the newly appointed Arbitrator entered upon the reference and submitted his award on November 14, 1991. This concluding part of his Award reads as under:

"House No. 17 would entirely belong to Lachhman Das Bhatia whereas House No. 18 would be jointly Owned by Lachhman Das and Jagdish Chand cr. Lachhman Das would have 76.50% share whereas Jagdish Chander would have 23.50% share in House No. 18. As House No. 17 has entirely been given to Lachhman Das Bhatia in all fairness. Jagdish Chander Bhatia should give Vacant possession of House No. 17 to Lachhman Das Bhatia."

The parties were directed to bear their own costs of the arbitration proceedings except that Jagdish Chander Bhatia had 10 pay Rs. 4,000/- to Lachhman Das Bhatia as his share of the Arbitrators fees which he had initially failed to deposit. Against this award, Jagdish Chamfer Bhatia (hereinafter called the objector) has filed objections under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which provision reads as under:

"An award shall not be set aside except on one or more of the following grounds, namely

(a) that an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself for the proceedings;

(b) that an award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration proceedings have become invalid under section 35;

(c) that an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid."

It was conceded by the learned counsel for the Objector that clause (b) would not be attracted. His main submission was that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself, in that, he did not take into consideration several documents which were placed on record before him which support the Objectors case and hence the A ward was invalid. He, therefore, partly relied on clauses (a) and (c) for setting aside the A ward. The documents to which the learned counsel for the Objector invited out-attention, are to be found in Volume 2 of the paper book placed before us. These documents arc 31 in number and they mainly (elate to the rights an