( 1 ) MUKUL Mudgal, J.-These are the objections to the award dated 28th August, 1995 delivered by the Arbitrator, Mr. I. V. Nainani, who had been appointed as Sole Arbitrator by the Chief Engineer, PWD Zone-1, New Delhi on 27th January, 1994. Sixteen claims, 2 additional claims and one counter claim were referred to the Arbitrator for adjudication. The petitioner s claim is that every claim was set out by the Arbitrator but he completely omitted to even refer to or adjudicate Claim No. 10. It is also stated by the petitioner/objector that in contrast there are several claims such as Claim No. 5, Claim No. 6, Claim No. 8 and Claim No. 12 which have been discussed and rejected by the Arbitrator by giving a nil award qua these claims. He submits that thus the award has failed to even notice Claim No. 10 entitling him to seek the setting aside of the award at least qua Claim No. 10 and thereof for redetermination.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Court in M/s. Prag Distilled Water and Ice Factory v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another, reported as AIR 1988 Delhi 37, the omission to mention a cla