( 1 ) BY filing the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the award dated 22nd October, 1999 passed by the sole arbitrator Sh. L. C. Sharma. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the aforesaid arbitrator was appointed by this court by order dated 4th December, 1998 passed in C. P. No. 106/1995. In order to appreciate the contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties, reference is required to be made to some background facts leading to filing of the present petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner invited tenders for doing interior work at the ground floor of its office at Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender, the defendant submitted its tender for an estimated cost of the work of Rs. 14. 64 lacs. The petitioner accepted the tender of the respondent and the work order was issued in favour of the respondent by order dated 1st July, 1989. The respondent completed its work and sent a final bill to the petitioner. However, the said bill was not passed and cleared. The matter was thereafter referred to the Architect, in terms of Clause 56 of the agreement between the parties. The architect submitted his report on the bills submitted by the respondent.

( 3 ) CLAUSE 56 of the agreement between the parties provides that all the disputes and differences of any kind whatever arising out or or in connection with the contract or the carrying out of the works shall be referred to and settled by the Architect, who shall state his decision in writing and such decision may be in the form of a final certificate or otherwise. It is also provided therein that the decision of the Architect with respect of any of the excepted matters shall be final and without appeal. The said clause further provides the remedy which could be resorted to as against the decision of the Architect when it states that if either the owner or the contractor be dissatisfied with the decision of the Architect on any matter, question or dispute of any kind or as to withholding by the Architect of any certificate to which the Contractor may claim to be entitled, the same shall be referred to arbitration. Since in the present case, the Architect submitted his report in favour of the respondent, therefore, the respondent treated the same to be final and did not submit any request for referring any dispute arising out of or in connection with the agreement between the parties for adjudication through the process of arbitration. Instead the respondent treated the said report of the architect as a final certificate and since no payment was made by the petitioner to the respondent in terms of the aforesaid report, the respondent filed a petition before the Company Court under section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act praying for winding up of the petitioner company on the ground that the petitioner is indebted to the respondent and that it has neglected and/or refused to make payment of the said debt in spite of notice served by the respondent.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid petition before the Company Court both the parties agreed that the disputes inter se the parties could be referred to arbitration of an Architect. In view of the aforesaid position, the Company Court thought it fit that the disputes between the parties require consideration and adjudication by an arbitrator and those disputes were referred to the sole arbitrator Sh. L. C. Sharma, Architect. In the said order it was further mentioned that all the disputes and differences could be raised before the learned Arbitrator. In terms of the said order, the Arbitrator appointed by this court entered into the reference, received evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter passed his award on 22nd October, 1999. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said award passed by the learned Arbitrator, filed the present petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Concili