S.K. Hazari, J. - (1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.4.1992. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act filed by the appellant praying for setting aside the award dated 21.2.1990 passed by the Joint Arbitrators. The said award was a non-seeking award. The claimant before the Joint Arbitrators made a claim for a sum of Rs. 61,57,883.25p. under different heads of claim. The claimant also made a further claim amounting to Rs. 3,30,000 by way of additional claim. The respondent made a counter-claim for Rs. 59,83,518.50p. By the said award the Joint Arbitrators made an award in favour of the claimant for a sum of Rs. 8,38,000 and also made an award against additional claim amounting to Rs. 37,000 and a further sum was awarded amounting to Rs. 78,789 by way of refund of the security deposit.
(2.) Some difference arose between the parties and there was an arbitration clause. Pursuant to the said arbitration clause the respondent nominated one S. Baidyanath as its Arbitrator and the petitioner nominated one U.S. Prosad as its Arbitrator. The Joint Arbitrators appointed an Umpire and, therefore, entered into the reference.
(3.) Two points were placed before us by Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the appellant. Firstly, that the Joint Arbitrators closed the arbitration proceeding without informing that the sitting of the arbitration was closed and abruptly and hastily passed an award and thereby has misconducted themselves and also the proceeding, and also made violation of the principles of natural justice. The second point urged by Mr. Chatterjee is that the Joint Arbitrators entertained the additional claim which was made on 1.12.1989 after the filing of the counter claim on 29.9.1989 and after closing the arbitration sitting in November, 1989 passed a sum of Rs. 37,000 in the said award. It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the said additional claim was beyond the scope of the arbitration and as such the Joint Arbitrators misconducted themselves and the proceeding. It is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the two sittings were held in Assam and, thereafter there were two sittings at Madras and after the Madras sittings the Arbitrators directed the parties to give certain particulars by 5.2.1990 and, thereafter, the Arbitrators were to meet at Calcutta between 19th and 21st February, 1990. The Arbitrators never informed the parties that the arbitration was closed and they were going to pass an award. It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that it is the bounden duty of the Arbitrators to inform the parties by notice and/or by implication that the arbitration proceeding was going to be closed and the Arbitrators were going to pass an award. After the sitting at Madras, it is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee, parties were kept in dark and only certain particulars were to be forwarded and the parties forwarded those particulars and never thought that the arbitration proceeding was closed.;