An Arbitrator's failure to assign reasons for certain claims amounts to legal misconduct within the meaning of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, and the award is liable to be set aside.

( 1 ) THIS suit has been registered on an application under Section 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the award dated 31. 5. 93 made by a sole Arbitrator.

( 2 ) IN response to a notice inviting tender No. Engg:e-M/ma/tb/85-86 dated 20. 3. 86 issued by the respondents, the petitioner-firm submitted its tender which was accepted by the respondent. Contract dated 1. 12. 86 was arrived at and entered into between the parties. The work involved instalation, testing and commissioning of MATV system at Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi. Disputes arose between the parties and the same having arisen out of the contract, in accordance with the arbitration clause they were REFERRED TO to adjudication by a sole Arbitrator. The arbitration clause as contained in the General Conditions of Contract and Standard Contract Forms for Engineering and Architectural Works issued by the respondent contains inter alia thain all cases where the amount of the claim in dispute is R. 50,000. 00 and above, the arbitrator shall give reasons for the award.

( 3 ) THE Arbitrator entered on the reference on 27. 9. 92. The award was given on 31. 5. 93. It was filed in the Court by the Arbitrator. Notice of filing of the award was issued by the Court to both the parties. It was served on the petitioner on 11. 11. 93 and on the respondent on 15. 11. 93. The petitioner filed its objections registered as IA 1363/94. Notice of the objections filed by the petitioner was also issued to the respondent and served on 25. 4. 94. As recorded in the order sheets dated 10. 2. 94 and 6. 7. 94, the respondent has chosen neither to enter appearance nor to file any objections to the award. It has also chosen not to appear to contest the objections filed on behalf of the petitioner.

( 4 ) ON 9. 9. 94, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the objections preferred TO by it were capable of being substantiated by a mere persual of the award and record of the proceedings of the Arbitrator; it was not necessary to record any evidence. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R. C. Dubey have been heard on merits. Award and 404 record of arbitration proceedings perused.

( 5 ) IT is proposed to take up each of the such claims determined by the arbitrator which have been challenged by the petitioner.

( 6 ) CLAIM No. 1-This claim consisted of two parts:- (a) claim relating to T. V. points per day basis-Rs. 1,45,713. 00 and (b) claim relating to compound interest- Rs. 4,86,867. 00. Three reasons have been assigned by the Arbitrator for refusing the petitioner s claim:- (i) The claimant submitted inflated bills after the termination of the contract; (ii) The claimant accepted the payment on functional TV basis as finally recorded in the MB; and (iii) There is no interest clause in the agreement. 6. 1 Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the three reasons assigned by Arbitrator are non-existent and demonstrate that the Arbitrator did not look into the record and paid no attention to the relevant documents. 6. 2 The statement of claims vis-a-vis payments made to the petitioner by the respondent filed as Annexure VI in the record of the Arbitrator shows that the bills were submitted by the petitioner month by month. The amount stated in the bills is the same which has been ultimately claimed. It is not, therefore, correct to say that an inflated Bill was submitted by the petitioner after the termination of the contract. 6. 3 Photo copies of MBs have been filed. The respondent did not produce the original MBs before the Arbitrator, though the petitioner had insisted on such production. These MBs were signed on behalf of the petitioner alongwith an endorsement "signed under protest". The documents C-31 and C-32 are the letters dated 30. 6. 90 exchanged between the parties. They show that the respondent had refused to release any payment to the pet