Arbitrator at Chennai would have very well been appointed.

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

In this appeal, the Central Warehousing Corporation, the appellant herein has put in issue the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 110. 2003 made in O.P. No.615 of 2002 setting aside the arbitration award dated 110. 2001 passed by the second respondent herein and directed the appellant to appoint an arbitrator, who is available at Chennai within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to conduct the arbitration proceedings in Chennai in accordance with law and to pass a speaking order within four months from the date of entering into the reference. In the award, which was impugned in the O.P., the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.4,62,912/- towards counter claims in favour of the appellant herein with the direction to adjust the security deposit furnished in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-by the first respondent. The balance of Rs.3,62,912/- was directed to be paid by the first respondent, in addition to the arbitration expenses. In the arbitration award, the arbitrator has considered the first claim alone and rejected the same as not sustainable with reference to the terms contained in the contract, but did not even consider the rest of the six claims on the ground that those claims did not come within the ambit of reference of arbitration.

2. The material facts of the case required to be stated, go as follows :

The first respondent entered into an agreement on 27.07.1998 for transportation for fertilizer and foodgrain from Tanjore Railway-shed to the appellant-warehouse at Thanjavur for a period of two years with the appellant. As the performance of the respondent contractor was not in accordance with the agreed terms, the appellant terminated the contract on 22.03.2000. The first respondent, questioning the order of termination, had filed a writ petition No.5343 of 2000 seeking for the relief to quash the order of termination dated 22.03.2000 and consequently direct the appellant to appoint an arbitrator as provided under clause XIX of the agreement to sort out the dispute arising out of the contract between the appellant and the first respondent. On receipt of the notice from the Court in the above said writ petition, the appellant referred the dispute to the second respondent arbitrator by his letter dated 010. 2000. In view of the referral of the dispute for arbitration, the writ petition was stated to be disposed of as nothing remains to be adjudicated, upon hearing the parties.

.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as aforesaid, the first respondent has averred that he was not able to transport the goods to the appellant warehouse through the shorter route because of heavy traffic congestion and was forced to choose only the longer route, which was provided in the agreement. Having regard to the longer distance covered by the first respondent, the first respondent claimed a sum of Rs.15,76,913/- for the period from 01.03.1999 to 15.01.2000. The appellant has approved Rs.4,11,358/- which correspond to the shorter route and deducted Rs.11,65,555/-, which was not acceptable to the first respondent. Taking the above said averment as the basis for the dispute, the appellant made a reference to the second respondent to adjudicate the dispute that has arisen between the parties in respect of the agreement and relating to the claim of the respondent contractor amounting to Rs.15.77 lakhs (approx) as per the affidavit dated 27.03.2000 filed in the writ petition. Pursuant to the same, the second respondent, by letter dated 210. 2000, called upon the first respondent to file a claim statement amounting Rs.15.77 lakhs (approx) along with supporting documents by 211. 2000. In the said letter it was also informed that the venue of hearing would be at Delhi. In response to the application of the respondent dated 011. 2000 that the arbitrator should cover all the disputes touching upon the contract, the arbitrator by his letter dated 20.11.2000 inform