SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The respondent had awarded a contract for road transportation of ISO containers between ICD/SCS, Tughlakabad to Moradabad and Saharanpur vide its letter of 21.06.1993. Clause 17 of the terms and conditions governing the contract contained the arbitration clause. Disputes between the parties were to be referred to the sole arbitration of the Managing Director of the respondent and in case of his unwillingness to act, to the sole arbitration of some other person appointed by the Managing Director.

.2. Disputes arose between the parties and the managing director appointed Sh. Gauri Shankar as arbitrator vide a letter no. CON/SEC/ARBIT/NATVAR/95/2345 dated 21.12.1995. The disputes pertained to the outstanding dues of the claimant against the respondent. The arbitrator entered upon reference on 17.01.1996 and published the award dated 03.03.1997. The arbitrator has noted that extensions were granted with the consent of parties on four occasions, the last one being after the final hearing on 26.02.1997 up to 15.03.1997. In his award dated 03.03.1997, the arbitrator has found that the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs 29,50,044/-and also granted interest @ 16 per cent per annum to be paid in case of delay in payment.

3. The respondent filed objections to the award. It is the case of the respondent that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes between the parties on account of clauses 8 and 17 of the contract. The respondent also contends that the award was null and void as it was passed beyond time. The extensions granted were stated to be granted on the condition of the decision of the arbitrator as regards jurisdiction. It has also been alleged that there are errors apparent on the face of the award. The respondent has alleged that the finding of the arbitrator that the implementation of the award by the parties does not constitute an excepted matter is illegal. it is averred that the arbitrator has invoked the provisions of the Multi-Modal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the MMTG Act) which was not applicable to the contract between the parties. A plea has also been taken that the arbitrator has disregarded evidence and the terms and conditions of the contract. Besides, the respondent has objected to the lack of decision on the applications of the respondent alleging that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction in the matter.

.4. The petitioner has denied that the arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction or that the award was passed beyond time. It has been denied that the work was not executed to the satisfaction of the respondent. The involvement of a driver in the theft of containers alleged by the respondent has also been denied. It has been accepted that the petitioner was responsible for the safety of the containers and cargo while the same were in its custody. Insofar as the grounds of challenge are concerned, the petitioner has taken the stand that the arbitrator has acted within his jurisdiction and under the terms and conditions of the contract. As regards the extension of time, it is the submission of the petitioner that the arbitrator had requested the parties to extend the time for the publishing of the award but such extension was warranted by omissions and commissions on the part of the respondent who stayed away from the arbitration proceedings on various dates. The contention of the respondent that the extension granted was conditional has been denied by the petitioner and it is averred that both the parties had agreed to the extension of time for publishing the award. It has also been denied that there are any apparent errors in the award. The petitioner has stated in its reply that it cannot be said that the award is beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitrator just because the disputes referred were only pertaining to the transportation of containers between Moradabad and Delhi and the transportation of containers from Sahar