The main legal point established in the judgment is that the umpire's active participation in the proceedings before the arbitrators did not vitiate the proceedings or the award, as it was necessary for the umpire to sit with the arbitrators and follow the evidence taken before them.

1. The appeal and the revision petition arises out of arbitration proceedings without intervention of Court based on the Arbitration Act in pursuance to the contract dated 6-4-1961 between the appellant and the respondent for the construction of certain buildings and other engineering works at Mavoor in Calicut for the wood pulp division of the respondent. Clause.67 of the Contract provided that any dispute between the parties arising out of the same bad to be referred to two arbitrators one to be nominated by the appellant and the other by the respondent and the said clause authorised the arbitrators to appoint an umpire to act in case of any difference of opinion among them.

2. In view of the difference of opinion in the working of the contract the parties invoked Clause.67 of the Contract. The appellant nominated Sri. S. Ganapathia Pillai, a retired judge of the High Court of Madras, while the respondent nominated Sri. K. Sankaran, a retired Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court as arbitrators to act and the arbitrators in their turn appointed Dr. P. V Rajamannar, retired Chief Justice of the Madras High Court as the umpire. In view of the difference of opinion between the arbitrators the matter was referred to the umpire who passed the award dated 23 91965.

3. The appellant filed O. P. 236 of 1965 under S.13 of the Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940 in the court below to set aside the award on the ground that the umpire misconducted himself within the meaning of S.30 (a) of the said Act. The petition was dismissed by the court below and the appeal is directed against the said order.

4. The umpire produced the award in Court with a statement under S.14 (2) of the Arbitration Act and the said statement was registered by the Court below as O. S.102 of 1965. The learned judge passed a decree in terms of the award and the revision petition is directed against the said decision.

5. In Para.12 of the award it is stated thus:

"In view of the complexity and extensive nature of the evidence likely to be adduced, it was considered desirable that the Umpire should sit along with the two Arbitrators throughout the hearing to obviate the necessity of adducing the entire evidence over again before the Umpire, in case there was a difference of opinion between the Arbitrators."

It is agreed between the parties that the umpire sat with the arbitrators throughout the course of the entire proceedings. The misconduct in the umpire alleged by the appellant is that he was during such sitting participating in the proceedings before the arbitrators. Para.5 of the Original Petition to set aside the award states:

"From the very commencement of the proceedings, the Umpire Shri P.V. Rajamannar, also sat along with the arbitrators, taking a very active part in the conduct of the proceedings and in the discussions in the course of the proceedings."

One of the arbitrators Sri. K. Sankaran examined as R.W.1 deposed as follows: "Before commencing the recording of evidence there was a discussion between myself and Ganapathia Pillai about the probable volume of evidence that may have to be recorded in view of the points of dispute between the parties. We felt that a considerable volume of evidence will have to be recorded. We also felt that is case of difference of opinion between us the matter will necessarily have to go before the umpire. In such as event it will be in the interest of the contesting parties to avoid repetition of the recording of the evidence before the umpire and such a petition would have entailed avoidable delay in the final decision-It would also have entailed considerable additional expenses for both parties. In view of all these aspects we thought that it would be to the benefit of ail concerned to permit the umpire also to sit with the Arbitrators at the recording of the evidence so that in the event of his being called upon to pronounce a final award, it may be necessary for him only to hear the arguments of both sides in the light o