Charanjit Talwar ( 1 ) ON a petition filed under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, Shri P. C. Rao, the learned Arbitrator filed his award, which was published on 1st June, 1981, in court. M/s Asian Dehydrates Ltd. , the respondent herein filed its objections which were registered as IA 283/83. The petitioner. Union of India field their reply. On pleadings of the perties, the following four issues were framed: 1) Whether the reference to the arbitrator was unilateral and if so to what effect? O. P. Objector. 2) Whether Delhi court has jurisdiction to try the petition? 3) Whether the arbitrator misconducted himself in the proceedings as alleged ? O. P Objector. 4) Whether the award was not made within time. If so to what effect? ( 2 ) THE parties availed of the opportunity to file affidavits in support of their contentions. The petitioner in the counter affidavit filed by Shri K. . R. Bhargava, Assistant Chief Director of Purchase, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, has, inter-alia, submitted that parties had mutually extended the time to enable the arbitrator to file his award. This averment was specifically urged in sub-para s of paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit. The respondent in its objections as well as in the affidavit had taken a plea that the award was not made by the arbitrator within four months of entering on the reference. This plea was taken in sub-para s of paragraph 7. It is useful to note the reply thereto. It reads: "s With regard to para S of the grounds, it is stated here that arbitrator s time was mutually extended by the parties in accordance with the Arbitration Agreement. It is further stated that the award is just and legal and binding on the parties. " ( 3 ) IN the view which I am taking, it is unnecessary at this stage to decide the first three issues As far as the issue No. 4 is concerned, from the pleadings and the affidavits, it is abundently clear that the stand of the Government was that the arbitrator had not made his award within time. The plea, however, was that the time had been mutually extended by the parties in accordance with the Arbitration Agreement. To test that plea, I asked Mr. Watwani. leareed counsel for the petitioner, Govt. The plea, however, was that the time had been mutually extended by the parties in accordance with the Arbitration Agreement. To test that plea, I asked Mr. Watwani. leareed counsel for the petitioner, Govt. of India to show me from the arbitiation proceedings as to when did the parties mutually agree before the arbitrator to extend the time. He has not been able to show any joint application filed by the parties extending the time or statement of the parties to that effect or even a note by the arbitrator that the parties have mutually agreed to extend the time. Mr. Watwani, however, submits that after going through the record, it can be said that in fact the arbitrator made his award in time. This submission in view of the pleadings and the clear stand taken in the affidavit by the Govt. of India, cannot be taken at this stage of arguments. Mr. Watwani s request that I should go through the record of the arbitrator and conclude that the award was filed in time, cannot be accepted in view of the reply of the Govt. of India in sub-para s of paragraph 7 quoted above. It is practically admitted therein in so many words that the arbitrator did not make his award within time. ( 4 ) IN this view of the matter, the award published on 1st June, 1981 and filed in this court in compliance of directions passed on 29th July, 1981 is set aside. However, in my view. the matter needs to be remitted for reconsideration to that very learned arbitrator. Mr Watwani points out that Dr. P. C. Rao is no longer functioning as the Sole Arbitrator in the Ministry of Law and Justice and is at present posted as Joint Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and attached to the Railway Board. While remitted the amid, I leave it to the learned Sole Arbitrator to refer the disputes to the concerned Secretary as per the Arbitration Agreement for appointment of another arbitrator in case he (Dr. Rao) has no time to decide the disputes. No order as to costs. The file of arbitration record received from the learned arbitrator be returned to him immediately. The arbitrator to submit his decision to the court within four months from the date he enters on the reference. Rao) has no time to decide the disputes. No order as to costs. The file of arbitration record received from the learned arbitrator be returned to him immediately. The arbitrator to submit his decision to the court within four months from the date he enters on the reference. ( 5 ) THE petition and the pending application are disposed of.