MANMOHAN, J : (Oral)

1. Present application has been filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenging the Award dated 13th November, 1995 passed by Mr. Avadh Behari Rohatgi, Sole Arbitrator.

2. Mr. P.D. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent/objector-cooperative society submitted that the impugned Award was liable to be set aside as the appointment of the Arbitrator was illegal inasmuch as the Arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed by petitioner/claimant-architect. In this connection, Mr. Gupta relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dharma Prathishthanam Vs. Madhok Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported in IV (2004) CLT 130 (SC).

3. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the learned Arbitrator could not have awarded any compensation to claimant-architect as under the contract, claimant-architect was only entitled to, “a fee of 2.5% on total cost of executed works excluding the cost of land.” In this connection, Mr. Gupta relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ramnath International Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 2 SCC 453.

4. On the other hand, Mr. D.R. Bhatia, learned counsel for pe