O. N. VOHRA ( 1 ) ON behalf of Union of India this application under S. 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter called the Act, was filed for making the award dated July 12, 1976 passed by Shri M. K. Koundinya, arbitrator, in arbitration case No. ARB/mkk/438, a rule of the Court. On the award being filed by the arbitrator, notice of the filing of the award was issued to the Union of India and Shri V. K. Bahri inviting objections. Objections under Ss. 30 and 33 of the Act were filed by Shri V. K. Bahri contending, inter alia, that as per Cl. 25 of the contract, the arbitrator was required to give reasons in cases where amount of claim and counter-claim exceeded Rs. 50,000. 00 but no reasons had been given despite the fact that the aggregate amount of the claim and the counter- claim was Rs. 53,833. 00. ( 2 ) IN its reply it was pleaded by Union of India that the want of reasons did not vitiate the award and that the objection was merely technical. Accordingly, following issues were framed on Jan. 27, 1978: 1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside in that the arbitrator had not given any reasons in support of the award as envisaged by Cl. 25 of the contract, and thus is guilty of having misconducted the proceedings? OPD. 2. Relief. Findings. ( 3 ) ISSUE No. 1 It is not in dispute that the value of the claims with which the arbitrator was concerned, was in excess of Rupees 50,000. 00. It is also not in dispute that as per arbitration Cl. 25, which was the basis of tiie reference to the arbitrator for adjudication, the arbitrator was required to give his reasons for the award and that no reasons have, in fact, been given in this case. According to Shri P. P. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India, it is well established that arbitrator need not give reasons for the award and. therefore, the non-mention of reasons in support of tiie award by itself does not invalidate the award. I feel inclined to agree that the defect pointed out in the objections does not amount to grounds which have been enumerated in Section 80 of the Act for setting aside the award. therefore, the non-mention of reasons in support of tiie award by itself does not invalidate the award. I feel inclined to agree that the defect pointed out in the objections does not amount to grounds which have been enumerated in Section 80 of the Act for setting aside the award. This is apparent from the perusal of the Section which says: "30. An award shall not be set aside except on one or more of the following grounds, namely: (a) that an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself or the proceedings; (b) that an award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration or after arbitration proceedings have become invalid under Section 35; (c) that an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. ( 4 ) THIS is, however, not the end of the matter. The arbitrator acquired jurisdiction to adjudicate on the disputes arising between the parties on the basis of the arbitration agreement comprised in Cl. 25. This clause states that in case the claim is in excess of Rs. 50,000. 00, the arbitrator shall mention his reasons for the award. The use of the word "shall" makes it obligatory for the arbitrator to mention the reasons. This does not appear to be an idle exercise or a formality. In case the arbitrator does not mention the reasons for the award, the scope of filing objections against the award is diminished to a great extent. There cannot be any doubt in this behalf. Moreover, mention of reasons brings more of conviction to the mind in regard to the correctness of the conclusion arrived at in the form of the award. The need in this behalf becomes appreciable in cases where the stakes are high. It cannot, therefore, be gainsaid that the requirement that the arbitrator to be appointed in terms of the arbitration clause would mention his reasons in support of the award, in the event of the claim being in excess of Rs. 50,000. 00, was a deliberate and intentional one Inasmuch as this agreement is the fountain-head for acquiring jurisdiction by fhe arbitrator in the matter of taking proceedings culminating into making of the award, it is binding on the parties in every way and it is also binding on the arbitrator/who is expected to function within fhe limits imposed or recognised therein. 00, was a deliberate and intentional one Inasmuch as this agreement is the fountain-head for acquiring jurisdiction by fhe arbitrator in the matter of taking proceedings culminating into making of the award, it is binding on the parties in every way and it is also binding on the arbitrator/who is expected to function within fhe limits imposed or recognised therein. It would, therefore, clearly amount to an illegality on the part of the arbitrator to disregard the provision in regard to mentioning reasons in cases wherein he is required to do so and the situation would attract Cl. (c) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 16 of the Act which says: "16. The Court may from time to time remit the award or any matter referred to arbitration to the arbitrators or umpire for reconsideration upon such terms as it thinks fit (a) and (b ). . . . . . (c) where an objection to fhe legality of the award is apparent upon the face of it. " ( 5 ) I do not think that it is a case of misconduct of proceedings nor a case where the award is otherwise invalid within the meaning of S. 30 of the Act and no question of setting aside the award on acceptance of objections under S. 30 of the Act arises. The issue is decided in these terms. Relief ( 6 ) FOR fhe foregoing reasons, the objections are allowed. It is ordered that the award be remitted to the arbitrator under Cl. (c) to S. 16 (1) of the Act and a period of two months is fixed under sub-sec. (2) of S. 16 of the Act for the arbitrator to give his award in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. The arbitrator shall re-submit the award expeditiously after the making thereof. ( 7 ) THE parties shall bear their own costs.