JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present challenge has been preferred under Section 30, read with Sections 33 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1940 Act”), against an arbitral award passed under the said Act. The award initially matured into a decree of court, which was later recalled.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the award is vitiated, being devoid of reasons. Moreover, the award is perverse, being not based on any evidence. Thus, the learned Arbitrator misconducted himself or the proceedings within the contemplation of Section 30(a) of the 1940 Act, which is a valid ground for setting aside of the award under Section 30 of the 1940 Act.

3. Learned senior counsel cites the judgment of State of Rajasthan and another v. Ferro Concrete Construction Private Limited reported at (2009) 12 SCC 1 for the proposition that an Arbitrator can be said to have committed a legal misconduct by ignoring the terms of contract. In the said case, the Arbitrator had overlooked the fact that an additional provision regarding mobilization advance was introduced in the agreement itself.

4. Learned senior counsel also reli