Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.2.2006 whereby while upholding the impugned award dated 5.5.1993, the learned Single Judge dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under Sections 30 & 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The validity and legality of the award and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge mainly on the ground that the Arbitrators had misconducted themselves and in the proceedings held before them by not affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant merely on the ground that the appellant failed to deposit the fee of the Arbitrators. Indisputably, the jurisdiction of the courts to examine the correctness of the award is very limited and can be exercised only when the challenge is made on one or more grounds as enumerated in any one of the Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, normally the decision of the Arbitrator is not interfered as the decision of the Arbitrator who is chosen by the parties themselves must be respected unless there exists total perversity or irrationality in the award or the Arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings held before him.

2. Confining ourselves to the above settled legal parameters, we will examine as to whether the Arbitral Tribunal in the present case adhered to the principles of natural justice and had afforded fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant in the conduct of the proceedings before them.

3. Before adverting to delve on the rival contentions of the parties, we deem it necessary to give brief facts of the case.

4. On 6.3.1984, respondent No. 2 National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC in short) invited tenders for the supply and erection of transmission lines and towers for Kanpur-Etah and Kanpur-Kanpur 400 KV lines and in response thereto respondent No. 1 Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (EMC in short) submitted a tender. Respondent No. 2/NTPC had awarded the contract in favour of respondent No. 1 at a total contract price of Rs. 290.52 lacs. Respondent No. 1 raised various claims against respondent No. 2 of the total amount of Rs. 91,02,621.99. Respondent No. 2 constituted a Committee to examine the said claims raised by respondent No. 1 and on 3.1.1991, the Committee accepted claims of Rs. 10.35 lacs against claim of Rs. 91.02 lacs on the condition that respondent No. 1 would not make any further claim. Various meetings between respondent No. 1 and 2 were held between 14.5.1991 and 9.7.1991 to amicably settle the claims but with no positive results. In the meanwhile on 23.10.1989, National Power Transmission Corporation (later on came to be known as Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.) was incorporated with an authorized capital of Rs. 5000 crores with an object of moving large blocks of power from various generating sources to their respective load centres and to have national power grid in the country (wherever the expression Appellant is used that will mean and include NPTC being successor in interest of NTPC).

5. On 12.7.1991, Government of India through Ministry of Power and Non-conventional Energy Sources issued an order directing respondent No. 2 and the appellant to enter into an agreement for the transfer of electric transmission system under the control of respondent No. 2 to the appellant. Pursuant to the said directions, the appellant entered into an agreement with respondent No. 2 dated 13.8.1991 inter alia transferring/authorizing the management, execution and control of various projects which were earlier undertaken by respondent No. 2 to the appellant. On 14.8.1991, NTPC respondent No. 2 executed a general power of attorney in favour of the appellant to exercise all rights and power and to discharge all obligations of respondent No. 2. On 4/28.11.1991, respondent No. 2/NTPC sent a letter to respondent No. 1/EMC stating that the management of const