M/S ANAND BROTHERS P. LTD. TR. M.D.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                       [2014] 10 S.C.R. 382


A           MIS ANAND BROTHERS P. LTD. TR. M.D.
                                 V.
                     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2009)
                      SEPTEMBER 4, 2014
B
               [T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN AND
                   ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]

        Arbitration Act, 1940: Arbitration Award passed in favour
C of the appellant-company set aside by High Court on the
  ground that the expression "finding" appearing in Clause 70
  of the General Conditions of Contract implies something
  more than the mere recording of a conclusion by the Arbitrator
  and the Arbitrator failed to give the findings - High Court
D remitted the matter back to the Arbitrator for a fresh
  determination of the disputes between the parties - Held:
  Arbitrator's award was admittedly unsupported by any reason
  - High Court rightly set aside the award - Arbitration and
  Conciliation Act, 1996 - s.31(3).
E       Words and phrases: 'findings' - Meaning of

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. A plain reading of Clause 70 of the General
F Conditions of Contract showed that the Arbitrator was
  required to (i) give his award within the stipulated period
  as extended from time to time. (ii) the Award must be on
  "all matter referred to him" (iii) the Award must indicate
  the findings of the Arbitrator along with sums, if any,
G awarded (iv) the findings and award of sums if any must
  be separate on each item of dispute. [Para 5] [385, D-E]

         2. Section 31 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
    Act, 1996 obliges the arbitral tribunal to state the reasons

H                               382
ANAND BROTHERS P. LTD. TR. M.D. v. UNION OF              383
                  INDIA

upon which it is based unless the parties have agreed           A
that no reasons be given or the arbitral award is based
on consent of the parties. The expression 'finding' has
not been defined either in the agreement executed
between the parties or in any statute for that matter. The
expression shall, therefore, have to be given its ordinary      B
literal meaning having regard to the context in which the
same is used. It is only when the conclusion is supported
by reasons on which it is based that one can logically
describe the process as tantamount to recording a
finding. Clause 70 provides a mechanism for adjudication        C
of disputes between the parties and not only requires the
Arbitrator to indicate the amount he is awarding in regard
to each item of claim but also the "findings on each one
of such items". The underlying purpose of making such
a provision in the arbitration clause governing the parties,    D
obviously was to ensure that the Arbitrator while
adjudicating upon the disputes as a Judge chosen by the
parties gives reasons for the conclusions that he may
arrive at. In the case at hand the Arbitrator's award was
admittedly unsupported by any reason, no matter the             E
Arbitrator had in the column captioned 'findings' made
comments like 'sustained', 'partly sustained', 'not
sustained'. The High Court was, therefore, justified in
setting aside the award made by the Arbitrator and
remitting the matter to him for making of a fresh award.
                                                                F
[Paras 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16] [388-D-F; 389-F-G; 393-A-B;
392-D, G, H; 349-A-B]

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 76
of 2009.
                                                                G
    From the Judgment & Order dated 04.08.2008 in FAO
(OS) No. 144 of 2002 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.

    Saurabh Suman Sinha, Sunil Singh Parihar, S.K.
Sabharwal for the Appellant.
                                                                H
    384       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A        P.S. Patwalia, J.S. Attri, Vimla Sinha, Farrukh Rasheed,
    B.V. Balaram Das, Anil Katiyar for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. ~ non-speaking arbitral award in
B   favour of the appellant-company was set aside by a learned
    Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi on the ground that the
    Arbitrator had not recorded his "findings" as required under
    Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract. Relying upon
    the decisions of this Court in Mis Daffadar Bhagat Singh and
C   Sons v. Income-tax officer, A Ward, Ferozepur (AIR 1969 SC
    340), Bhanji Bhadgwandas v. The Commissioner of Income-
    tax, Madras (AIR 1968 SC 139 and Rajinder Nath etc. v.
    Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (AIR 1979 SC 1933) the
    High Court held that the expression "finding" appearing in
D   Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract implies
    something more than the mere recording of a conclusion by the
    Arbitrator. Inasmuch as the Arbitrator had failed to do so, the
    award rendered by him was unsustainable. The High Court
    accordingly set aside the award and remitted the matter back
E   to the Arbitrator for a fresh determination of the disputes
    between the parties.

       2. An appeal was then preferred by the appellant-company
  before a Division Bench of the High Court who relying upon the
F decision of this Court in Gora Lal v. Union of India (2003) 12
  SCC 459 affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
  Dissatisfied, the appellant has approached this Court by
  special leave.

      3. When the matter initially came up before a Bench
G comprising R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, JJ. on 5th
  January, 2009 the Court noticed a divergence in the decision
  rendered by this Court in Gora Lat's case (supra) and that
  rendered in Build India Construction System v. Union of India
  (2002) 5 sec 433. The matter was, therefore, referred to a
H
 ANAND BROTHERS P. LTD. TR. M.D. v. UNION OF                  385
           INDIA [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
larger Bench to resolve the conflict. That is precisely how this      A
appeal has been listed before us.

     4. Clause 70 of the General Conditions of Contract to the
extent the same is relevant for our purposes, is to the following
effect:

    " ............ The Arbitrator shall give his award within a
    period of six months from the date of his entering on his
    reference or within the extended time as the case may be
    on all matters referred to him and shall indicate his findings,
    along with sums awarded, separately on each individual            C
    item of dispute."

      5. A plain reading of the above would show that the
Arbitrator was required to (i) gi~e his award within the stipulated
period as extended from time to time. (ii) the Award must be          D
on "all matter referred to him" (iii) the Award must indicate the
findings of the Arbitrator along with sums, if any, awarded (iv)
the findings and award of sums if any must be separate on
each item of dispute. There is no gainsaying that Clause 70
makes a clear distinction between findings on each individual
                                                                      E
item of dispute on the one hand and the sum, if any, awarded
in regard to the same on the other. That the Arbitrator had made
his award in regard to each item of dispute raised by the
appellant before it, is evident from a reading of the award. The
question is whether the Arbitrator had recorded his findings on
each such items. The High Court has, as noted above,                  F
answered that question in the negative; and set aside the award
holding that the expression 'findings' must include the reasons
for the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Arbitrator. That view
was assailed by learned counsel for the appellant who
contended that the expression 'findings' should not imply the         G
process of reasoning adopted by the Arbitrator for recording
his conclusions. A finding howsoever cryptic would, according
to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant,
 satisfy the requirement of Clause 70 for otherwise the Clause
would have been differently worded so as to make it mandatory         H
    386       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A for the Arbitrator to make what is called a speaking award
  giving reasons for the conclusions arFived at by_ him.

         6. On behalf of the respondent it was per contra argued
    by Mr. P.S. Patwalia and Mr. J.S. Attri, learned senior counsel
. B that the question was no longer res-integra having been
    addressed in Gora Lat's case (supra) where this Court held
    that the expression "finding on each individual item of dispute"
    clearly meant that reason in support of the findings must also
    be recorded by the Arbitrator. It was contended that a finding
  C which is unsupported by any reason is no finding in the eye of
    law.

       7. Before we examine whether the expression 'finding'
  appearing in Clause 70 would include reasons in support of the
  conclusion drawn by the arbitrator, we consider it appropriate
D to refer to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in
  Raipur Development Authority v. Mis Chokhamal Contractors
  etc (1989) 2 SCC 721 where this Court was examining whether
  an award without giving reasons can be remitted or set aside
  by the Court in the absence of any stipulation in the arbitral
E agreement obliging the arbitrator to record his reasons.
  Answering the question in the negative, this Court held that a
  non-speaking award cannot be set aside except in cases where
  the parties stipulate that the arbitrator shall furnish reasons for
  his award. This Court held:
F         "33 ... ... When the parties to the dispute insist upon
          reasons being given, the arbitrator is, as already
          observed earlier, under an obligationto give reasons. But
          there may be many arbitrations in which parties to the
          dispute may not relish the disclosure of the reasons for
G         the awards. In the circumstances and particularly having
          regard to the various reasons given by the Indian Law
          Commission for not recommending to the Government
          to introduce an amendment in the Act requiring the
          arbitrators to give reasons for their awards we feel that it
H         may not be appropriate to take the view that all awards
 ANAND BROTHERS P. LTD. TR. M.D. v. UNION OF 387
           INDIA [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    which do not contain reasons should either be remitted A
    or set aside ..... "

      8. Having said that, this Court declared that Government
and their instrumentalities should - as a matter of policy and
public interest - if not as a compulsion of law, ensure that
                                                                 8
whenever they enter into an agreement for resolution of disputes
by way of private arbitrations, the requirement of speaking
awards is expressly stipulated and ensured. Any laxity in that
behalf might lend itself and perhaps justify the legitimate
criticism that government failed to provide agai.[lst possible
prejudice to public interest. The following passage is in this C
regard apposite:

     "There is, however, one aspect of non-speaking awards
    in non-statutory arbitrations to which Government and
    governmental authorities are parties that compel D
    attention. The trappings of a body which discharges
    judicial functions and is required to act in accordance with
    law with their concomitant obligations for reasoned
     decisions, are not attracted to a private adjudication of
     the nature of arbitration as the latter, as we have noticed E
     earlier, is not supposed to exert the State's sovereign
    judicial power. But arbitra/ awards in disputes to which the
     State and its instrumentalities are parties affect public
     interest and the matter of the manner in which
     Government and its instrumentalities allow their interest F
     to be affected by such arbitral adjudications involve larger
     questions of policy and public interest. Government and
     its instrumentalities cannot simply allow large financial
     interests of the State to be prejudicially affected by non-
     reviewab/e - except in the limited way allowed by the
     statute - non-speaking arbitra/ awards. Indeed, this G
     branch of the system of dispute resolution has, of late,
     acquired a certain degree of notoriety by the manner in
     which in many cases the financial interests of Government
     have come to suffer by awards which have raised
                                                                H
    388       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A         eyebrows by doubts as to their rectitude and propriety. It
          will not be justifiable for Governments or their
          instrumentalities to enter into arbitration agreements
          which do not expressly stipulate the rendering of
          reasoned and speaking awards. Governments and their
B         instrumentalities should, as a matter of policy and public
          interest - if not as a compulsion of law - ensure that
          wherever they enter into agreements for resolution of
          disputes by resort to private arbitrations, the requirement
          of speaking awards is expressly stipulated and ensured.
c         It is for Governments and their instrumentalities to ensure
          in future this requirement as a matter of policy in the
          larger public interest. Any lapse in that behalf might lend
          itself to and perhaps justify, the legitimate criticism that
          Government failed to provide against possible prejudice
          to public interest."
D
        9. Reference may also be made to The Arbifration and
  Conciliation Act, 1996 which has repealed the Arbitration Act
  of 1940 and which seeks to achieve the twin objectives of
  obliging the Arbitral Tribunal to give reasons for its arbitral award
E and reducing the supervisory role of Courts in arbitration
  proceedings. Section 31 (3) of the said Act obliges the arbitral
  tribunal to state the reasons upon which it is based unless the
  parties have agreed that no reasons be given or the arbitral
  award is based on consent of the parties. There is, therefore,
F a paradigm shift in the legal position under the new Act which
  prescribes a uniform requirement for the arbitrators to give
  reasons except in the two situations mentioned above. The
  change in the legal approach towards arbitration as an
  Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism is perceptible both
G in regard to the requirement of giving reasons and the scope
  of interference by the Court with arbitral awards. While in regard
  to requirement of giving reasons the law has brought in
  dimensions not found under the old Act, the scope of
  interference appears to be shrinking in its amplitude, no matter
H judicial pronouncements at time appear to be heading towards
 ANAND BROTHERS P. LTD. TR. M.D. v. UNION OF                 389
           INDIA [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
a more expansive approach, that may appear to some to be A
opening up areas for judicial review on newer grounds falling
under the caption "Public Policy" appearing in Section 34 of ·
the Act. We are referring to these developments for it is one of
the well known canons of interpretation of statues that when an
earlier enactment is truly ambiguous in that it is equally open B
to diverse meanings, the later enactment may in certain
circumstances serve as the parliamentary exposition of the
former. (See: Ram Kishan Ram Nath v. Janpad Sabha AIR
1962 SC 1073 and Ghanshyam Dass v. Dominion of India
(1984) 3  sec  46 at 58).                                            c
     10. In Jogendra Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax AIR
1969 SC 1089, this Court held that subsequent legislation on
the same subject may be looked into with a view to giving a
proper exposition of a provision of the earlier Act. Borrowing
the principle from the above pronouncements it is reasonable         D
to hold that the obligation cast upon the arbitrator in terms of
Clause 70 in the case at hand ought to be understood in the
light of not only the exposition of law by this Court in
Chokhamal's case (supra) but also in the light of the statutory
prescription that now mandates recording of reasons by the           E
Arbitrator. The judicial climate in which arbitral awards are
being made and viewed also lends its.elf to an interpretation
that would make it obligatory for the Arbitrator to record reasons
in support of the findings recorded by him.
                                                                     F
     11. Let us in the above backdrop examine the textual
meaning-and contextual significance of the expression 'finding'
appearing in Clause 70. The expression has not been defined
either in the agreement executed between the parties or in any
statute for that matter. The expression shall, therefore, have to    G
be given its ordinary literal meaning having regard to the context
in which the same is used. A textual interpretation that matches
the contextual is known to be the best. The principle is well
settled but the decision of this Court in Reserve Bank of India
v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. And
                                                                     H
    390         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A   Ors. (1987) 1 sec 424 has sounded a timely reminder of the
    same when it said:

            "Interpretation must depend on the text and the context.
             They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if
            the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour.
B
            Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That
            interpretation is best which makes the textual
            interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best
            interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this
            knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and
c           then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by
            phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the
            context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute-
            maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the
            sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour
D           and appear different than when the statute is looked at
            without the glasses provided by the context. With these
            glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover
            what each section, each clause, each phrase and each
            word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the
E           scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word
            of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have
            to be construed, so that every word has a place and
            everything is in its place. It is by looking at the definition
            as a whole in the setting of the entire Act and by reference
F           to what preceded the enactment and the reasons for it that
            the court construed the expression 'Prize Chit' in
            Srinivasa (1980) 4 sec 507 and we find no reason to
            depart from the court's construction."

G         12. Keeping the above in view, we may turn to the Oxford
    Dictionary which gives the following meaning to the word
    'finding':

            "the conclusion reached by judicial or other inquiry".

H           Black's Law Dictionary defines 'find' and 'finding of fact'
    thus:
 ANAND BROTHERS P. LTD. TR. M.D. v. UNION OF 391
           INDIA [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    "find - to determine a fact in dispute by verdict or           A
    decision.

    and,

    finding of fact: A determination by a judge, jury, or
    administrative agency of a fact supported by the               B
    evidence in the record, usually presented at the trial or
    hearing."

    Webster Comprehensive Dictionary defines the
expression 'finding' as under:                                     c
    "the act of finding; that which is found; discovery; 2. Law
    A conclusion arrived at before an official or a court. 3
    Support; expense."

     P. Ramanathan Aiyar's Law Lexicon (Second Ed.)                D
assigns the following meaning to the term "finding":

    "The decision of a judge, arbitrator, jury, or referee."

    It further explains the term thus:
                                                                   E
    "A term used by the profession and by the courts as
    meaning the decision of a trial court upon disputed facts."

      13. It is evident from the above that English language and
law dictionaries and the Law Lexicons -give a wide range of        F
meaning to the expression 'finding'. The predominant use of
the expression is in relation to determination by a Judge, Jury,
Administrative Agency, Arbitrator or a Referee. The
determination is described either as a finding, decision or
conclusion; upon disputed facts. It is also described as a         G
determination of a fact supported by evidence on the record. It
is interchangeably used as a conclusion or d~cjsion a term used
by the legal profession and by Courts. The term "conclusion"
is in turn defined by Black's Law Dictionary as under:
                                                                   H
    392       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A         "The final part of a speech or writing (such as jury
          argument or a pleading);

          a judgment arrived at by reasoning;
          an inferential statement;
B
          the closing, settling, or final arranging of a treaty, contract,
          deal, etc."

        14. It is trite that a finding can be both; a finding of fact or
C a finding of law. It may even be a finding on a mixed question
  of law and fact. In the case of a finding on a legal issue the
  Arbitrator may on facts that are proved or admitted explore his
  options and lay bare the process by which he arrives at any
  such finding. It is only when the conclusion is supported by
  reasons on which it is based that one can logically describe
D the process as tantamount to recording a finding. It is immaterial
  whether the reasons given in support of the conclusion are
  sound or erroneous. That is because a conclusion supported
  by reasons would constitute a "finding" no matter the conclusion
  or the reasons in support of the same may themselves be
E erroneous on facts or in law. It may then be an erroneous
  finding but it would nonetheless be a finding. What is important
  is that a finding presupposes application of mind. Application
  of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of the mind; mind
  in turn is best disclosed by recording reasons. That is the soul
F of every adjudicatory process which affects the rights of the
  parties. This is true also in the case of a finding of fact where
  too the process of reasoning must be disclosed in order that it
  is accepted as a finding in the sense the expression is used
   in Clause 70.
G
        15. The above exposition matches even the contextual
  interpretation of Clause 70 which provides a mechanism for
  adjudication of disputes between the parties and not only
   requires the Arbitrator to indicate the amount he is awarding
H In regard to each item of claim but also the "findings on each
 ANAND BROTHERS P. LTD. TR. M.D. v. UNION OF 393
           INDIA [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
one of such items". The underlying purpose of making such a        A
provision in the arbitration clause governing the parties,
obviously was to ensure that the Arbitrator while adjudicating
upon the disputes as a Judge chosen by the parties gives
reasons for the conclusions that he may arrive at. The
expression 'finding' appearing in Clause 70, therefore, needs      B
to be so construed as to promote that object and include within
it not only the ultimate conclusion which the Arbitrator arrives
at but also the process of reasoning by which he does so.
Clause 70 could not, in our opinion, have meant to be only a
wooden or lifeless formality of indicating whether the claim is    C
accepted or rejected. Any such statement would have made no
qualitative· addition to the adjudication of the claim for the
arbitrator would award a sum of money but withhold the reasons
for the same. We are in respectful agreement with the view
taken by this Court in Gora Lal's case (supra) when it said:
                                                                   D
    "The point for determination in this case is: whether the
    arbitrator ought to have given reasons in support of his
    findings, along with the sums awarded, on each item of
    dispute. To decide this point, we have to go by the text
    and the context of clause 70 of the arbitration agreement      E
    quoted above. Under the said clause, the arbitrator was
    required to identify each individual item of dispute and
    give his findings thereon along with the sum awarded. In
    this context, one has to read the word "findings" with the
    expression "on each item of dispute" and if so read it is      F
    clear that the word "finding" denotes "reasons" in support
    of the said conclusion on each item of dispute. The word
    "finding" has been defined in "Words and Phrases,
    Permanent Edn., 17, West Publishing Co." to mean "an
    ascertainment of facts and the result of investigations".      G
    Applying the above test to clause 70, we are of the view
    that the arbitrator was required to give reasons in support
    of his findings on the items of dispute along with the sums
    awarded. We make it clear that this order is confined to
    the facts of this case and our interpretation is confined      H
    394      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 10 S.C.R.


A         to clause 70 of the arbitration agreement in this case."

         16. In the case at hand the Arbitrator's award was
    admittedly unsupported by any reason, no matter the Arbitrator
    had in the column captioned 'findings' made comments like
    'sustained', 'partly sustained', 'not sustained'. The High Court
8   was, therefore, justified in setting aside the award made by the
    Arbitrator and remitting the matter to him for making of a fresh
    award.

          17. That brings us to the decision of this Court in Build
C   India Construction System (supra) which was relied upon to
    canvass that it stated a proposition contrary to that stated in
    Gora Lat's case (supra). In Build India Construction System
    (supra) this Court noted in no uncertain terms that the validity
    of the award had not been specifically questioned on the
D   ground of its having been given in breach of any obligation of
    the Arbitrator to give reasons as spelled out by the arbitration
    clause. The judgment of the learned Single Judge did not show,
    observed this Court, that such a plea was urged before him.
    The objection petition filed to challenge the award was also
E   found by this Court to be vague and general hence insufficient
    to give rise to an effective challenge to the award on the ground
    of it being non-speaking. The plea regarding the Award being
    non-speaking was raised for the first time before the Division
    bench in appeal. This Court in that backdrop held that the
F   Division Bench fell in error in entertaining and upholding such
    a plea at such a late stage. This Court said:

          "11. There are several other factors which preclude the
          respondents from urging such a plea. The reference to
          arbitrator does not suggest an obligation having been
G         cast on the arbitrator to give reasons for the award. Such
          a plea, as has been urged in this Court, was not taken
          by the respondents before the arbitrator. Even in the
          objections filed in the Court, the validity of the award has
          not been specifically questioned on the ground of its
H         having been given in breach of any obligation of the
 ANAND BROTHERS P. LTD. TR. M.D. v. UNION OF 395
           INDIA [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

     arbitrator to give reasons as spelled out by the arbitration       A
     clause. The judgment of the teamed Single Judge does
     not show such a plea having been urged before him. In
     the objection petition, there is a vague and general plea
     raised that rejecting the claims forming the subject-matter
     of cross-objection and allowing the claim of the appellant         B
     without assigning any reason was bad. Such an omnibus
     and general plea cannot be read as submitting that the
     amendment dated 4-9-1986 applied to the contract
     between the parties and that in view of the amended
     arbitration clause the unreasoned award was bad. It                C
     appears that the plea was for the first time raised at the
     appellate stage before the Division Bench of the High
     Court. Unwittingly the Division Bench fell into the error
     of entertaining such a plea and disposing of the appeal
     by upholding the same though the plea was not even                 D
     available to the respondents to be raised at that stage."

      18. It is, in the light of the above observations, difficult to
read Build India Construction System (supra) as an authority
for the proposition that Clause 70 of the General Conditions of         E
the Contract did not oblige the Arbitrator to record reasons. The
decision must, therefore, remain confined to the facts of that
case only.

     19. It was next contended by learned counsel for the
appellant that the High Court has directed the Arbitrator to make       F
an award in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Since, however, the arbitration proceedings had been
conducted under the old Act any remission to the Arbitrator
could only be under the provisions of the said Act. Mr. Patwalia,
learned Additional Solicitor General, did not dispute that              G
position. He submitted that this Court could make it clear that
the Arbitrator would conduct the proceedings under the
provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

     20. It was lastly argued by learned counsel for the appellant      H
    396       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A that since the proceedings have remained stayed for a
  considerable period, this Court could direct the Arbitrator to
  dispose of the same expeditiously. Our attention was, in this
  connection, drawn to a letter dated 2nd March, 2009 whereby
  the respondents have appointed Shri Dharma Sheel, Supdt.
B Engineer (Personnel and Legal) Headquarter as a Sole
  Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties
  as Col. Dalip Banerjee, earlier appointed had expressed his
  inability to continue nor was Col. S.N. Kuda, initially appointed,
  ready to go on with proceedings. It was urged that if for any
c reason Shri Banerjee, the newly appointed Arbitrator is also
  unable to take up the assignment, the respondents could be
  directed to appoint another Arbitrator within a time frame with
  a direction to the Arbitrator so appointed to conclude the
  proceedings as early as possible. We see no reason to decline
  the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant
0
  especially when Mr. Patwalia submitted that in case Shri
  Banerjee was also unable to enter upon reference for any
  reason the respondents shall, within such time, as may be fixed
  by this Court nominate another Arbitrator.

E      21. In the result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
  We, however, make it clear that consequent upon the orders
  passed by the High Court the Arbitrator shall conclude the
  proceedings in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration Act of
  1940 expeditiously. We further make it clear that in case the
F Arbitrator already nominated is for any reason unable to take
  up the assignment the respondents shall within six weeks from
  today appoint a substitute Arbitrator who shall then enter upon
  the reference and conclude the proceedings as early as
  possible. No costs.
G   Devika Gujral                                  Appeal dismissed.