ORDER
DR. M.K. Sharma, J.
1. Pursuant to an order of the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. 1260/1991 and C.M. 1991/1991 disputes arising between the petitioner and the respondent were referred to the sole arbitrator to be appointed by the respondent. The petitioner was an allottee of a flat in a certain scheme of the respondent. His allotment of that flat was cancelled on the ground that he entered into some deal to dispose of that flat. By letter sent in December, 1990 and January, 1991 the amount of Rs.3 lakhs paid by the petitioner was sought to be returned to him. A writ petition was moved challenging the aforesaid cancellation of the allotment of flat by the petitioner in which this court having found that there is an arbitration agreement existing between the parties directed for reference of the disputes to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chairman of the respondent in terms of the arbitration agreement. Pursuant thereto the arbitrator was appointed. The said arbitrator entered upon the reference, received evidence and passed an award on 10.3.1993. The arbitrator held that the cancellation of booking of the flat for the petitioner at NOIDA by letter dated 26.12.1990 was valid and upheld the said cancellation. The award was directed to be implemented immediately. In the said award it was also directed that the respondent would immediately return to the petitioner the total amount of money standing to his credit as on 26.12.1990 together with interest accrued thereon till 26.8.1991. The aforesaid award was filed in this court as against which the petitioner has filed objections.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Mr. Chandiok, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the grounds on which the respondent cancelled the allotment of the flat in favour of the petitioner were nonexistent and irrelevant. He submitted that there is no evidence on record to justify the allegation of the respondent that the aforesaid flat was sold by the petitioner to Col. Satish Puri. He also submitted that the date on which Col. Satish Puri advanced some loan to the petitioner to enable
him to pay the instalments, said Col. Satish Puri was in active service and therefore, the entire basis for cancellation of the flat was illegal and invalid. He also submitted that the arbitrator misconducted himself in the proceedings as he received certain documents from the respondent after closure of the hearing of the case at the back of the petitioner and that some of the relevant documents filed by the petitioner were not placed on record.
In order to support his contention the learned counsel drew my attention to the order sheet dated 10.12.1992 wherein the arbitrator has recorded that clarifications were sought by arbitrator and that Lt. Col. C.M.Khanna placed on record the issues that need to be resolved. Counsel stated that the said issues placed on record are not available on the record of the case. He further submitted that the documents in Vol. No.2 were admittedly received by the arbitrator on 10.3.1993 as is apparent from the date given by the arbitrator below his signatures on the index of the said volume.
3. Counsel for the respondent refuted all the allegations and submitted that the said submissions are not tenable. He further submitted that there is no basis for the allegation that the arbitrator misconducted himself.
4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. I have carefully perused the award passed by the arbitrator. The award in the present case passed by the arbitrator is a non- speaking award. It is settled law that in case of nonspeaking award it is not open to the court to speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator, as to what impelled him to arrive at the conclusion. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Lal Brothers, . In some other decisions like State of Orissa Vs. Construction India, and State of Orissa Vs. Dandasi Sahu, , the Supreme Court has clearly observed that the validity of unreasoned award cannot be questioned unless there is misconduct or an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is also settled law that where no reason has been given by the arbitrator for his award, it is not open to the court to probe the mental process of the arbitrator to speculate as to
what impelled the arbitrator to arrive at the said conclusion and that in case of an unreasoned award the court is not to sit in appeal and examine the correctness of the award on merits, as was held in the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, .
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount paid by the petitioner towards payment of instalment of the flat came from genuine source is a matter relating to disputed facts in respect of which the arbitrator has recorded his conclusions. The arbitrator has upheld the cancellation of the flat by the respondent. This court is not competent and empowered to probe into the mental process of the arbitrator to find out the grounds and reasons on which he came to the aforesaid conclusion. The grounds and dispute sought to be raised by the petitioner
to prove and establish that the amount came from a genuine source and not from the sale proceeds of the flat is a question of fact which stands decided by the arbitrator and thus cannot be probed and/or re-appreciated like an appellate court. On perusal of the award passed by the arbitrator I am of the considered opinion that there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court has observed that validity of such unreasoned award can be questioned only if there is misconduct or an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Having held that there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record I have now to examine whether there was any misconduct on the part of the arbitrator.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to establish that the arbitrator misconducted himself in the proceedings by submitting that documents filed by the petitioner are not on record and that the arbitrator received some documents subsequent to closure of hearing in the proceedings. I am unable to agree with the counsel appearing for the petitioner. The documents received by the arbitrator during the arbitration proceedings were kept in files but it appears that the index of the said records was prepared by the arbitrator for the purpose of filing the award in this court along with the said documents. For even the statement of claim is also a part of the file which appears to have been indexed on 10.3.1993. The said
argument is misplaced.
7. The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that relevant documents filed by the petitioner are not on the record is also baseless. Even if the said issues were in writing and placed on record the same cannot be said to be a relevant document and absence thereof from the file cannot be termed as misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. There is thus no merit in the objections filed by the petitioner. The same stands rejected. The award passed by the arbitrator is made a Rule of the Court. Let a decree be drawn up in terms of the said award.