Arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by acting prematurely and failing to provide a reasoned award, necessitating the setting aside of the invalid award.

1. The present appeal under S.39 (1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (henceforth 'the Act') has been preferred to assail the legality and validity of the impugned common order passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.5 - A / 96 and Miscellaneous Civil Case No.141/96 on 17.2.1998 rejecting the appellant's prayer for setting aside the award dated 5.2.96 and at the same time allowing the application of the respondents under S.17 and S.29 of the Act for making the award the rule of the Court.

2. We have heard Shri Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant in great detail. The respondents failed to appear before this Court despite issuance of SPC, however, the appeal being of the year 1998, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.

3. Facts of the case, very briefly stated, are that the appellants invited tenders for Plant Illumination System of Bharatpur Colliery in the year 1989, in response to which the respondents, amongst other contenders, submitted its tender which was found suitable. The Letter of Intent (LoI) was issued on 17-2-89 and eventually the work order was issued and an agreement executed on 27-2-89 and 19.4.89 respectively. The contract value was Rs.64,58,580/-. Completion period of the contract was 12 months from the date of LoI as per clause 4.2 of the agreement. Even without completion of the work, the respondent raised a dispute on 26-12-91 that he has suffered loss on account of delay in providing the site by the appellant. Since clause 2.59 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) contained arbitration clause, one Mr. P.P. Bagroy was appointed as Officer Arbitrator upon nomination by the appellant who passed the award on 26-9-94 rejecting the entire claim of the respondent. Clause 2.59 of the GCC provided for two tier dispute resolution system under which upon the order by the Officer Arbitrator, aggrieved party can initiate arbitration proceeding to be settled under the rules of Indian Council of Arbitration by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration framed by the Indian Council of Arbitration.

4. The respondent being dissatisfied with the rejection of his claim by the Officer Arbitrator invoked arbitration clause upon which Mr. A.P. Paracer (Retired Additional Director General, CPWD) was appointed as Arbitrator after he gave his consent for such appointment on 13-5-95. The Arbitrator held 8 sittings on 4 dates of hearing, twice on each day of hearing and allowed the claim by passing award on 5-2-96 to the extent of Rs. 11,26,600/-. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant moved before the District Judge under S.30 of the Act for setting aside the award and at the same time, the respondent moved under S.17 and S.29 of the Act for making the award the rule of the Court. The District Judge has rejected the application preferred by the appellant and allowed the application preferred by the respondent. Thus the award has been made rule of the Court.

5. Assailing the impugned order as well as the award, learned counsel for the appellant would make four fold submissions. Firstly, he would attack the exercise of jurisdiction by the Arbitrator by referring to clause 2.59 of the GCC. The second ground of attack is on the count that the Arbitrator having failed to decide the counter - claim, it has violated clause 18 (a) of the Rules framed by the Indian Council of Arbitration. On third count, challenge to the award is thrown on the ground that it is unreasoned and non - speaking, therefore, there being no adjudication by the Arbitrator, it deserves to be set aside, in view of the language employed in R.44 framed by the Indian Council of Arbitration. Fourthly, award is challenged on the ground that for defects in 3 previous counts, the award suffers from patent illegali