( 2 ) ON the dispute being referred to the Arbitrator, UOI/claimant filed a claim for a sum of Rs. 17,54,000/ -. As against this, objector/contractor filed counter claims of Rs. 6,40,000/ -. Vide award dated 1. 9. 1993, learned Arbitrator awarded an amount Rs. 5,60,000/- in favour of the UOI without indicating the reasons in the award. It appears that the counter-claim of respondent was not at all considered. Learned Counsel for the objector has pointed out that learned Arbitrator framed some issues on 18. 2. 1991 and issue No. (e) specifically framed covering the counter claims. Issue No. (e) shall read as under: (e) Whether the respondents are entitled to loss or profit as claimed by them. " a perusal of the award shows that not a word has been said therein about the counter claims of the respondent. I heard Counsel for the objector has cited case law to the effect that if the Arbitrator does not consider the counter claims of the respondent, award is to be set aside on the ground of misconduct. Reference in this connection may be had to in cases of Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited v. M/s. BST Engineering Services, 1995 (2) Arb Law Reporter 403; K. V. George v. The Sectetary to Govt. , Water and Power Deptt. , Trivandrum and Anr. , AIR 1990 SC 53; and Punjab Housing Development Board and Anr. v. Ludhiana Builders and Engineers (P) Ltd. , 2001 (3) Arb. LR (SC) 29. No law to the contrary Has been cited by learned Counsel for the UOI. In this view of the matter, objections filed by the objector are accepted. Award is hereby set aside and remitted back to the learned Arbitrator for deciding afresh in accordance with law. With this direction, suit disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on 27. 12. 2004. Suit disposed of