( 1 ) THE respondent was awarded a contract for construction of 50,000 MTC godown alongwith electrical installations and internal roads by the petitioner. During the course of execution of the aforesaid work disputes arose between the parties. Subsequently, the respondent suspended and stopped work and accordingly the contract with the respondent was terminated and the petitioner proceeded to issue a fresh tender for the incomplete work at the risk and cost of the respondent. The petitioner and the respondent requested the Managing Director of the petitioner to appoint an arbitrator in terms of clause 25 of the conditions of the contract and REFERRED TO the claims of the parties to the said arbitrator. The appointing authority namely the Managing Director of the petitioner by his letter dated 15. 10. 1987 appointed Shri M. C. Johari as the arbitrator and the two claims of the petitioner and also about 7 claims out of total of 10 claims of the respondent were REFERRED TO to the said arbitrator for decision. The claims No. 1,2,4,6 and 8 of the respondent were not REFERRED TO to the arbitrator as the same were considered to be `excepted matters by the petitioner. The respondent, thereafter filed a petition in this court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. On the other hand Shri M. C. Johari, arbitrator entered upon the reference on 4. 11. 1987 and directed the parties to file their claims and counter claims statement. During the pendency of the hearing of the aforesaid reference the respondents by their letter dated 19. 2. 1988 informed the arbitrator that a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act has been filed in the High Court and the same is pending and requested to adjourn the hearing. The arbitrator, therefore, did not proceed with the arbitration. This court by order dated 20. 2. 1991 passed in Suit No. 1373-A/1985 disposed of the petition filed by the respondent and directed the Managing Director of the petitioner to appoint the arbitrator in terms of clause 25 of the agreement, referring the disputes as mentioned in the petition to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Appointing Authority. By letter dated 12. 4. 1991 the appointing authority appointed Shri B. K. Sharma, as the arbitrator and REFERRED TO the claims of the respondent as specified by the High Court as also the counter claims of the petitioner pending before Shri M. C. Johari for adjudication and decision in terms of the arbitration clause. The arbitrator appointed by the appointing authority entered upon the reference and after going through the evidence adduced and after hearing the parties passed an award on 7. 8. 1993. The said award was filed in this court and an objection has been filed as against the said award by the respondent, which is registered as I. A. No. 10187/1994.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the aforesaid objection as also on the issue as to whether the award should be made a rule of the court or not. In the light of the submissions advanced before me by the counsel appearing for the parties and the documents placed on record I propose to dispose of the objections as also the suit by this common judgment/order.

( 3 ) THE first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is that the award was made by the arbitrator in a hurry and there was violation of the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the petitioner submitted his written submissions on 20. 7. 1993 and without waiting for the reply to be submitted by the respondent the arbitrator proceeded to pass his award on 27. 8. 1993. According to the counsel there was clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The aforesaid submission, in my considered opinion is misplaced. It is the case of both the parties that the arbitrator heard both the parties and gave ample opportunities to place their respective cases and records