( 1 ) BY this judgment I. A. Nos. 4347/84, 7082/84 and Suit No. 1142a/84 are being disposed of. Suit No. 1142a/84 is a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act) for filing arbitrator s Award dated 21st May, 1984 in the court and for passing a decree in terms of the said Award, I. A. No. 7082/84 are the objections against the said Award filed by the defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 had also filed another objection petition (IA No. 4347/84) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act, before the award was filed in court and notice was given to it.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the plaintiff a Govt. company, on 21st February, 1973 had entered into a licence agreement with M/s. Arborites Private Ltd. of Cochin (for short Arborites) providing for disclosure by the former to the latter the use of the knowhow for the manufacture of spice oleoresins developed and invented by the Central Food Technical Research Institute, Mysore which they were entitled to use on the agreed terms for a period of 14 years commencing from 1. 10. 1971 on royalty @ 1-1/2% of net ex-factory sale price besides a premium of Rs. 5,000. 00. On the same day, another tripartite agreement was entered into between the plaintiff, Arborites and the M/s. Synthite Industrial Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (for short SICL), defendant No. 1 whereby Arborites assigned all its rights, benefits/obligations under the said licence agreement to SICL.

( 3 ) IN terms of the agreements SICL was required to submit six monthly royalty returns and they actually submitted such returns upto 31st March, 1980. Royalty dues upto 31st March, 1977 were also paid. However, for the period 1st April, 1977 to 31st March, 1980 a sum of Rs. 2,87,550. 12 remained due and the royalty returns were also not sent after 31st March, 1980, inspite of letter of demand dated 21/22 January, 1981. The agreement in its Clause 11 provided for arbitration of the disputes and differences arising between the parties by the Chairman of National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) or his nominee. Plaintiff made reference to the Chairman and Dr. G. S. Sidhu, who was then the Chairman accepted the reference and called upon the parties to file their statement of claim and reply alongwith their documents vide letter dated 22. 10. 1982. On request time for the purpose was extended. Plaintiff filed their statement of claim on 25. 11. 1982 while defendant No. 1 submitted reply and counter claim dated 26. 1. 1983. Rejoinder reply was also filed by the plaintiff. Several dates were fixed by the arbitrator which were adjourned and nothing took place towards the progress of the arbitration. The defendant No. 1 vide its letter dated 4. 1. 1984 raised two objections, one, that as the arbitrator had ceased to be the Chairman of NRDC his authority as arbitrator has come to an end and secondly, the statutory period for making the award has expired and he could not proceed with the arbitration. This was disputed by the plaintiff. The learned arbitrator rejected both these objections on 5. 4. 1984 and gave notice of further proceedings to the parties for 10. 5. 1984. The defendant No. 1 did not participate in the arbitration proceedings and the arbitrator has given his ex parte award on 21st May, 1984.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 in objections under Sections 19, 30 and 33 of the Act (being IA No. 7082/84) has challenged the award as nullity, illegal and without jurisdiction on the following objections:-

(1) Dr. G. S. Sidhu was appointed as the arbitrator being the Chairman of NRDC and not in his personal capacity and as he had ceased to be the Chairman of the NRDC during the arbitration proceedings and he could not have acted as arbitrator thereafter, his award given after relinquishing the charge as Chairman, is without jurisdiction and void. (2) The arbitrator had entered on the reference on 22nd October, 1982 and the award having been made and published after expiry of the statutory period o