( 1 ) THIS Miscellaneous first Appeal preferred by the Karnataka State road Transport Corporation under Section 37 (l) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 (for short the Act), is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 20th june, 2000 passed in Arbitration Suit No. 6 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the VI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. By the impugned judgment and order, the Court below has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act and Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief be noted first and they are as follows : The respondent herein is a Class-I Contractor and an agreement was executed between the respondent and the appellant, whereby the respondent was entrusted the work of construction of permanent bus-station at shidlaghatta in Kolar District under Contract no. 20/93-94, dated 23-9-1994. The cost of the work was Rs. 28. 60 lakhs and the stipulated period for completion of the work was 12 months.

( 3 ) THE work could not be completed within the stipulated period and as a result the contract between the parties was terminated. The same work was entrusted to some other agency and got it completed. The respondent raised a dispute and requested for arbitration in terms of Clause 29 of the agreement executed between the parties. As the dispute was not adjudicated by the named arbitrator, the respondent filed a petition under S. 11 of the Act. This Court in C. M. P. No. 4 of 1996 appointed Sri. H. S. Bhat, 599, 10th Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore as an Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute between the parties under the contract. Accordingly, the learned Arbitrator entered the reference and after issuing notice to the appellant and the respondent and after hearing them, passed an award dated 15-10-1998 whereby he has allowed some of the claims of the respondent and rejected the others. The Arbitrator (Award) passed by the Arbitrator is improper, illegal and vexatious; the claims of the respondent are covered and governed by the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, whereas the Arbitrator conducted the proceedings under the new Act.

( 4 ) IN the suit, it was contended by the appellant that it had a right under the contract to vary the quantum of contract; the appellant was vested with the right to stop the work for certain reasons for a specified period; the appellant was vested with the right to vary or curtail the drawing and specification of the tender work; the appellant did not violate any terms and conditions of the agreement dated 23-9-1994; the respondent stopped the work of construction of bus-station without any justification; the Arbitrator did not afford reasonable opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence; the respondent would not have earned more than 10% of the profit by investing men, money and material, whereas the Arbitrator has granted 20% of the profit with 18% interest as bonus without considering the terms and conditions of the agreement; the award passed by the arbitrator is improper, illegal and vexatious.

( 5 ) THE respondent-Contractor filed his objections inter alia contending that although the respondent was required to complete the work within 12 months and he was ready to complete the work within the stipulated time with men and material, he was asked to stop the work for a period of 1 month and again the quantum of work was reduced in breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement; due to consistent non-co-operation of the appellant, the respondent-Contractor could not complete the full quantum of work as originally envisaged and that the appellant arbitrarily terminated the contract; the award passed by the Arbitrator is valid and in conformity with the settled law.

( 6 ) THE Court below after hearing both sides and their respective pleadings, framed the following points for determination :1. Whether the petitioner proves that the appointment of Arbitrator un