An arbitrator must observe the fundamental principles of justice and consider all material documents before making an award. Failure to do so may result in the award being set aside for error of law, misconduct of the arbitrator, or improper procurement of the award.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff Bhai Sardar Singh and Sons (in short Contractor) was awarded the work "construction of types I, II and III Teachers Housing Complex at Lodhi Colony" pursuant to invitation of tenders. Originally, the contractor quoted rates at 46% above the CPWD schedule of rates 1967 subject to certain conditions but later on he submitted revised tender at 55. 55% instead of 46% above the CPWD schedule of rates 1967. This tender was duly accepted by the respondent-Committee vide resolution No. 18 dated 15th January, 1971. Subsequently, a formal agreement evidencing the contract was entered into between the parties on 22nd February, 1971. Certain disputes having arisen between the parties wish regard to the execution/implementation of the construction work, the same were referred by the respondent-Committee to the sole arbitration of Shri M. K. Nayyar respondent No. 2; who was Financial Advisor to Ministry of Home Affairs Govt. of India and ex-officio member of the respondent-Committee vide letter dated 24th of March, 1972. The Arbitrator entered upon reference and in due course the contractor submitted his statement of claim while the respondent filed a counter-statement of facts. Hearing before the arbitrator concluded on 22nd May, 1973 and the award was reserved. However, the contractor vide letter dated 5th June, 1973 followed by letter dated 3rd July, 1973 requested the arbitrator to inspect the site and see the work for himself in order to appraise the evidence in proper perspective and decide the claim of the contractor. However, it appears that the arbitrator passed no order on the same. Eventually, the arbitrator made and pronounced his award on 18th July, 1973. The contractor moved an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for filing of the award. Accordingly, on the direction of the Court, the arbitrator filed the award. On notice of the same having been served on the parties, the contractor has filed objections to the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act, being I. A. No. 3060/73.

( 2 ) THE award has been assailed on various grounds. It is inter alia, contended that the award is liable to be set aside (1) as it suffers from an error apparent on its face (2) because the arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings so as to vitiate the award and cause miscarriage of justice and (3) it has been improperly procured.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT-COMMITTEE has vehemently controverted the allegations made by the Contractor in the objection petition. Following issue was raised on l9th February, 1975.

"whether award dated 18th July, 1973 made by the respondent is liable to be set aside for the reasons mentioned in para 12 of the application?"

( 4 ) VIDE order dated 28th November, 1978 the award in question was set aside by Chadha, J. on the short ground that the appointment of the arbitrator respondent No. 2 was invalid, inasmuch as he has not been appointed by the person agreed upon by the parties in the reference clause. So his Lordship directed the President of the respondent-Committee to make fresh appointment of the arbitrator within a month in accordance with the arbitration agreement between the parties and refer the disputes raised by the objector for determination in accordance with the law. Feeling aggrieved by the said order respondent-Committee went in appeal and the Division Bench comprising Rajinder Sachher and S. B. Wad, J. set aside the aforesaid order and remanded the case back for decision on other objections vide judgment dated 11th December, 1979. Hence, I proceed with the remaining grounds of attack against the award.

( 5 ) THE principal grievance of the petitioner-Contractor is that the contract was awarded to him at 55. 55% above the Delhi Schedule of rates 1967 as modified till date. His precise contention is that vide correction slip No. 2 dated 16th June, 1969 Delhi schedule of rates 1967 was increased by 6%. Hence, he was entitled to