The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to set aside and remit an arbitral award in cases of procedural unfairness, as well as the interpretation of Section 34(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996.

Dhirendra Mishra, J. ;_

1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation 1996 (hereinafter shall be referred as 'Act of 1996') has been preferred b: appellant against the order dated 2 I .8.2006 passed by the Court of learned. Judge, Bilaspur, Court under the Act of 1991 in Civil Suit No. 8A/2002 where the Court while affirming the award ofRs.2,46,8 I 4/- passed in favour of respondent No.1/applicant has partly set aside the award by which the sole Arbitrator has rejected the claim of respondent No. I contractor and remitted the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator, through the Chairman cum Managing Director (for short 'CMD'), of the South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Bilaspur (for short "SECL") with a direction that Sole Arbitrator shall pass fresh award with a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order after affording sufficient opportunity of leading evidence to the parties and after ensuring that the documents in possession of the respective parties are produced.

2. Undisputed facts of the case are that a contract agreement was entered into between the SECL and respondent No.1-contractor for construction of security wall along with main road from Dipka barrier to Dipka Chowk and towards B & C types quarters and in accordance with the above agreement, work order dated 16.7.1992 was issued by the appellant herein. The value of the work was Rs.12, 13,810/- and the period for completion of the contract was six months from the 10th day of issuance of the work order.

3. The work could not be completed within the stipulated period and ultimately final extension was granted upto 29.10.1993 without imposition of penalty. After completion of work within the extended period, the respondent No.1 herein raised various claims, however, the claims preferred by respondent No.1 contractor was not allowed and respondent No.1 contractor vide his application dated 16.10.1997 put forth his claim and requested for appointment of the Arbitrator as per arbitration clause in the agreement and the CMD of SECL appointed respondent No.2 herein as the Sole Arbitrator. The sole Arbitrator commenced the arbitration proceedings and its 1st sitting was held on 9.5.1998. The Arbitrator was to pass the award after completing the arbitration proceedings within a period of four months. However, with the agreement of the parties, time was enlarged for a further period of four months w.e.f. 22.5.1998. The arbitration proceedings continued and in all 17 sittings were held till 7.3 .2002 and the award was passed on 16.4.2002 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,80,877=30 paise was awarded to respondent No.1 contractor for his claim No.1 towards final bills and Rs.65936.70 paise for claim No.2, towards escalation for the value of work executed beyond the original period of contract i.e. from 25.1.1993 to 29.10.1993.

4. The respondent No.1 herein moved an application under Section 34 of the Act before the Court for setting aside the award and the Court allowed the application of respondent No.1 by the impugned order and remanded back the matter to the Sole Arbitrator for passing fresh award against Claim Nos.3 to 10. However, the award passed in favour of respondent No.1 while deciding Claim No.1 & 2 has been confirmed.

5. The Court has passed the impugned order by recording the finding that respondent No.1/applicant vide his application dated 31.8.1998 had prayed for opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his claim, however, the said application was not decided till passing of the award though affidavits were filed by the parties. However, from perusal of the proceedings before the Arbitrator it is not clear that whether any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was given to the parties. After filing of the claim by respondent No.1 and reply of the claim, by the appellant herein issues were framed, with the consent of the parties and thereafter without giving any opportunity of adducing e