( 1 ) BY this Judgement I propose to dispose of OMP 222/1997, which is an application filed by National India Construction, (Claimant) under Sections 10 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for removal of Respondent No. 2 as the Arbitrator, and OMP 83/1998 which has bee filed by National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. (NBCC) under Section 28 (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for extension of time for making the Award.

( 2 ) THE facts are common in both the Petitions.

( 3 ) BY order dated 21. 5. 1996, Lokeshwar Prasad, J. had appointed Shri Prem Prakash as the Sole Arbitrator. On 13. 6. 1996 the Sole Arbitrator addressed a letter to the Manager (Law), NBCC Ltd. in which he stated inter alia that "i may please be advised in the matter further, if so, the orders if received may please be sent to me. " This letter has been mentioned by me because it is the contention of Learned Counsel for the Claimant that this indicates that the Sole Arbitrator was biased in favour of NBCC. It appears that immediately thereafter the Claimant in terms of letter dated 21. 6. 1996, had recorded its discomfort on this issue and had stated that the Sole Arbitrator ought to have sought clarification from the Hon ble Delhi High Court instead of Manager (Law), NBCC Ltd. In this very communication, the Claimant had also drawn attention to the fact that the NBCC had not filed complete documents despite the passage of four years. The Claimant further prayed that all further hearings may be held in Delhi but not in the office of NBCC Ltd. By his letter dated 20th August, 1996, the Sole Arbitrator informed the parties that the preliminary meeting would be held at the Corporate office on 13. 9. 1996. This meeting was subsequently cancelled by the Sole Arbitrator and instead the proposed proceedings were adjourned to 25th September, 1996. However, the hearing was now scheduled to be held in Phillaur (Punjab ).

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that at that time the Sole Arbitrator had been posted to this town. The Claimant thereupon sought an adjournment on the ground of the indisposition of its representative Shri S. K. Chopra and also requested that the hearings be held in Delhi only. The Claimant also solicited the passing of orders on its various prayers. In his letter dated 25. 9. 1996, the Sole Arbitrator nonetheless further hearing on 5th November, 1996 at Phillaur and also recorded that he would enter upon the Reference when both the parties were ready for their oral submissions. By its letter dated 7. 10. 1996, the Claimant again requested that proceedings be held in Delhi and that hearings be fixed after 25th October, 1996. In this letter the Claimant also voiced objections against the minutes of all the proceedings of the Sole Arbitrator. Umbrage was also recorded on the question that whereas the Sole Arbitrator had not addressed any of the prayers made by the Claimant he had heard the Respondent on the question of renewal of Bank Guarantee although the same has not been referred to him. The. Objection was also recorded to the effect that although the file of the erstwhile Arbitrator was handed over tods the Sole Arbitrator on 30. 7. 1996, the question of certification was raised only on 25. 9. 1996, i. e. , almost four months for the date of the appointment.

( 5 ) IN this letter, the Claimant also demanded that the Respondent be ordered to file the documents as per orders of he erstwhile Arbitrator. In his response dated 28. 10. 1996 the Sole Arbitrator stated inter. alia that the "the venue would be fixed, keeping in view the convenience of all during the hearing scheduled for 5. 11. 1996". The Claimant thereafter addressed a letter dated 7. 11. 1996 to the Sole Arbitrator submitting:

A) that they could not attend the hearing dated 5th November, 1996 because no reply to its letter had been sent by the Arbitrator. b) The Sole Arbitrator had become officio functus since he had entered upon Reference on 6. 7. 1996 and four months had expi