Devinder Gupta, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent has preferred these objections to the award made and published on 28. 2. 1990 by Shri Shiv Prakash, Additional Legal Advisor to the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi the sole arbitrator appointed by the Director General of Supplies and Disposal, New Delhi. Disputes had arisen amongst parties within the ambit of arbitration clause contained in the agreement entered into between the parties with respect to work of contract contained in Rate Contract No. POM-9/rc-Paper/0682 Writing |and Printing/82-83/322/coad dated 21. 1. 1983.

( 2 ) THE objector alleges that the arbitrator misconducted himself in making the award which is not based on documentary evidence. The objector had pointed out before the arbitrator that the claimant had failed to furnish any documentary evidence showing payment of excise duty to the tune of Rs. 3,57,679. 63. Without going into this aspect the arbitrator erred in awarding 50% of the amount without even himself verifying if at all claimant had made the payment or was entitled to it or not.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties who have taken me through the entire record.

( 4 ) T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document