H.K.Sema, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.3.1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in MS (Arb) No. 25/ 92. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the learned Court below has rejected the objection of the appellant and made the award as rule of the Court.
(2.) . We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. T.C. Khatri, the learned counsel for the opposite party. Two contentions have been raised by Mr. K.N. Choudhury. These are: (a) That the Arbitrator has misconducted himself in making the award; and (b) That the award made by the Arbitrator was erroneous is apparent on the face of the record.
(3.) Before we advert on the points raised by the appellant, we may, at this stage dispose of the preliminary objection raised by Mr. T.C. Khatri, the learned counsel for the respondent with regard to maintainability of the appeal. This appeal has been filed under Clauses (i) and (vi) of Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is contended by Mr. T.C. Khatri that none of the grounds mentioned in Section 39 are available in the present appeal and, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. To answer this question, it is necessary to look into the provisions of Section 39 of the Act. Section 39 of the Act reads.;