VIJENDER JAIN, J. (ORAL)

This appeal has been directed against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 02.08.1991. Pursuant to disputes, which arose between the appellant and the respondent No. 1, matter was referred to the sole Arbitration of Shri O. P. Mittal, respondent No. 2 herein, a retired Chief Engineer of CPWD. The Arbitrator gave his Award on 18.05.1988. The claims were filed by the respondent No. 1 Briefly narrating the claims are, Claim No. 1 is a claim for a sum of Rs. 12 lacs outstanding against the final bill; Claim No. 2 is for reimbursement of Rs. 3,50,000 due as a result of increase in price of bricks; Claim No. 3 is a claim for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 on account of difference in actual and theoretical weight of steel; Claim No. 4 is a claim for Rs. 90,000 deducted by the appellant towards rebate, which was rejected by the Arbitrator; Claim No. 5 is for Rs. 30 lacs on account of increase in market rates for material and labour after the stipulated date of completion; Claim No. 7 is for Rs. 3 lacs for cost of establishment and over heads salary to staff wages of labour kept in the maintenance period, which was rejected by the Arbitrator; and Claim No. 8 is for pendente lite interest till the date of decree or payment whichever is earlier. In view of the law then prevailing, Claim No. 8 for pendente lite interest was rejected. There was no Claim No. 6 in the Award. The appellant has also filed the counter-claims. Counter-claims were rejected by the Arbitrator.

Mr. Anil Sapra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has fairly contended that he is aggrieved by the impugned Award, as no reasons for arriving at various figures have been given by the Arbitrator. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to Claim No. 2 which was a claim for reimbursement of Rs. 3,50,000 as a result of increase in price of bricks. Mr. Sapra has contended that after discussing Claim No. 2, the Arbitrator has come to the conclusion that the claim is admissible to the extent of Rs. 2,25,734. According to Mr. Sapra as to on what basis this figure has been arrived at, ought to have been given in the Award otherwise it would amount to an adjudication which is based on non-application of mind and Award is perverse. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as College of Vocational Studies v. S. S. Jaitely, AIR 1987 Delhi 134 = 1987 (1) Arb. LR 315 (Del.) (DB), in which it is held :

"A bare reading of the finding against these two Claims B and B-1 will show that the Arbitrator has merely given his conclusions and verdict without giving any reasons. Reasons are the links on the material, documentary or oral evidence. Adduced before the Arbitrator, on which certain inferences are drawn and conclusions are made. There must be some rational nexus between the two indicated in the Award. The Arbitrator may not set out every process of reasoning or may not deal with every point raised but must, when he is called upon to give reasons, tell the 'reason' why he came to the particular conclusion. It is not possible for us to find out as to how and why the Arbitrator has arrived at the said figure of Rs. 2,91,518.63. During the course of arguments, we asked Mr. Watel to tell us even now, as to how this amount of Rs. 2,91,518.63 had been worked out. Even he could not tell us how this amount had been worked out by the Arbitrator. There is no indication of the mind of the Arbitrator in arriving at such a conclusion in awarding this amount of Rs. 2,91,518.63. We are of the view that these findings against Claims B and B-1 are without any reasons, whatsoever, and as such the Arbitrator has not only misconducted the Arbitration proceedings but has exceeded the terms of reference under which he was required to give reasons for his findings. As we have already held that the finding of the Arbitrator to the effect that the contractor was justified in cancell