( 1 ) ON receipt of the award dated 22nd May, 1985 in the matter of Arbitration between M/s. Pesticides India (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) and State Chemi- cals and Pharmaceuticals India Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corpora- tion), notices of filing of the award were issued to the parties on 30th May, 1985. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application bearing IA No. 4120/85 containing objections to the award. The objections were controverted in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. On 19th January, 1988, the following issues were framed:

(1 ) Whether the award is liable to be set-aside for the objections? (2) Whether the award is not liable to be made rule of the Court? (3) Relief.

( 2 ) ON the same date the objector was directed to file affidavit by way of evidence within eight weeks and non-objectors were directed to file their counter-affidavit within four weeks thereafter. Pursuant to this order the affidavit on behalf of the objector and the counter-affidavit on behalf of the non-objector have been filed. The arguments were heard on 4th October. 1993, 3. 11. 93, 26. 1 1. 93 and 6. 12. 93.

( 3 ) DR. Bakshi Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the present case the award was not given within the period prescribed under the Arbitration Act, 1940. He further submitted that the Court was not approached by any of the parties for enlargement of the time in making the award. He, therefore, contended that the award is liable to be set-aside on this short ground. In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgement of the Surpeme Court reported in State of Punjab VS. Hardyal, 1985 SC 920.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the finding of the learned arbitrator that the respondent was entitled to forfeit the earnest money, was illegal. He also submitted that where loss in terms of the money can be determined, the party claiming compensetion must prove loss suffered by him. He further submitted that in the present case the respondent had failed to prove that they had suffered actual loss equivalent of the earnest money and as such they were not entitled to forfeit the security deposit. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on three judgements of the Supreme Court reported in the cases of Fateh Chand VS. Balkishan Dass, AIR 1963 SC 1405, Mania Bux VS. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1955 and Union of India VS. Rampur Distillery and Chemical Co. Ltd. . AIR 1973 SC 1098. The learned counsel submitted that since the respondent had failed to prove the actual loss suffered by them, there was an error apparent on the face of the award in upholding the forfeiture of the earnest money. He, therefore, contended that the award was liable to the set-aside. In support of this contention he placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court reported in the case of The Upper Ganges Valley Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. VS. The U. P. Electricity Board,air1973 SC 683.

( 5 ) NO arguments were addressed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 as none appeared on behalf of the said respondents. Learned counsel for the defendant No. 4 also did not advance any argument as no relief has been claimed against the defendant No. 4.

( 6 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. From the arbitration proceedings I find that the petitioner had been appearing before the Arbitrattor throughout and had never taken the objection that the time for making the award had expired. In the case of Har Dayai (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, the Supreme Court has held that under Section 28 (2) of the Arbitration Act, the Court has the power to extend time for making the award and this power can be exercised even by the Appellate Court. Since the petitioner had been