VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) By way of present revision petition the challenge is made to the judgment dated 15.9.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh accepting the appeal filed by the Union of India against the order dated 22.10.1997 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh making the award rule of the Court.
(2.) The reading of the arbitration agreement shows that by way of agreement the parties had agreed that the Arbitrator would pass a speaking award as he was required to give finding for awarding sum, if any, in favour of either of the parties.
(3.) The Arbitrator passed a non-speaking award, however, the learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh made the award rule of the Court. The learned Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh, therefore, was right in coming to the conclusion that the award was made against the specific terms of the agreement and, therefore, amounted to misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator. It is settled law that the Arbitrator is creation of the agreement between the parties and, therefore, is bound by the terms of the agreement.;