The demand for fees by an arbitrator or umpire is not illegal or improper if it is fair, reasonable, and not excessive or extravagant, and if it is made on both parties equitably within the knowledge of both parties.

( 1 ) THIS first appeal from order has been filed by the objector M/s. Jeevan Industries Pvt. Ltd. against the judgment and order of the learned single judge of this court (S. N. Andley, J.), dated 19th May 1969, by which the learned single judge has dismissed the objections of the appellant and made the award of the umpire dated 8th March, 1966, a rule of the court. The award has been made by Shri P. N. Khanna who was then an advocate of this court, and later was elevated to the Bench of the High Court and has since retired, and the award directs the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 39,942 to Haji Bashiruddin Madhusudan, the respondent.

( 2 ) THE material facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant runs a cold storage in which the respondent kept his potatoes amongst others. The agreement for storage is exhibit R-1, dated 10th March, 1955. This agreement contains terms and circumstances in which the liability for damages to the goods stored would arise and it also contains the provisions for reference of disputes to arbitration. Some of the potatoes belonging to the respondent which had been stored in cold storage were spoiled and the disputes arose between the parties Eventually the disputes were referred under order of Mahajan, J. dated 26th November, 1962. passed in Civil Revisions Nos. 222-D of 1959 and 179-D of 1960, to the arbitration of two arbitrators, one of whom was nominated by each party. Cn 5-12-1963 they appointed Shri P. N. Khanna, as an umpire. On 6th July 1965, there was difference of opinion between the arbitrators and the matter was referred to the decision of the previously made umpire. The umpire Shri P. N. Khanna, commenced his proceedings on 27th August 1965 and made and published the award dated 8th March 1966 within the time extended by the court. Out of a claim for about Rs. 2,01,524/11/6 preferred by the respondent and a counter-claim of Rs. 41,516 preferred by the appellant the arbitrator in full and final settlement directed a payment of Rs. 39,942 by the appellant to the respondent. The award was filed by the umpire in court and notices were issued to the parties and the appeallant herein filed objections on 7th May 1966. A reply to the objections was filed and the following four issues were framed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, who was then dealing with the matter, namely,

1. Whether the award was made after the expiry of due time ? If so to what effect ?

2. Whether the Umpire was not properly appointed ? If so, to what effect ?

3. Whether the award is liable to be set aside for the grounds mentioned in the objection petition ?

4. Relief.

( 3 ) ON the advent of the Delhi High Court Act, this case was transferred to the original side of this court and was registered as an arbitration suit No. 426 of 1966. The appellant produced evidence and the umpire was himself examined as a witness and the respondent did not appear in the witness box. All the issues have been decided by the learned single judge by the impugned order. He found that the award has been made within the extended time and he decided the first issue against the objector. The second issue was also decided against the objector. In answer to the third issue the objections of the objector were repelled and the award has been made a rule of the court. Aggrieved by this decision the appellant has filed an appeal in this court. In the appeal he has not pressed issues No. 1 and 2. As a matter of fact a C. M. No. 940/69 was moved on 21st August 1969 to add a ground to challenge the appointment of the umpire, but Mr. S. C. Singh has not pressed the said application and, has, therefore, abandoned the grounds covered by issues Nos. I and 2. His main attack is directed against issue No. 3. The counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions :

(1) The umpire had misconducted himself in demanding his fees from stage to stage unrelated to the work in hand instead of stating the same at the outset and that