(1) THIS is an application for setting aside the award made by one of the retired judges of this court pursuant to the order of this court. The order was passed by this court in CivilNo. 1394 of 198 2/04/1982. The appeal came to this court from the order passed by the High court and by the order dated 8/04/1982 the appeal was disposed of. The order inter alia stated as follows : PARTIES are agreed that the arbitration application which has been filed under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 shall be referred to the arbitration of Mr Justice A. C. Gupta, retired Judge of this court. In view of the agreement between the parties, we refer the matter to the arbitration of Mr Justice A. C. Gupta. Parties are naturally anxious that the arbitration proceedings should be disposed of, as far as possible, within a period of three months. The arbitrator will be free to fix. his fees which shall be borne by both the sides equally. Pursuant to this order the award has been made on 24/08/1985. (2) IT was contended that the matter should go back to the Calcutta High court. We do not accept this contention, in view of this courts decision in Guru Nanak foundation v. M/s Rattan Singh & Sons. (3) TWO submissions were made before us impugning the award, that is to say non-production of survey documents have not been dealt with by the Award and the arbitrator thereby misconducted himself. The learned arbitrator has dealt with this contention as follows: IT appears from the affidavit of Shri Badri Prasad Ruia, a partner of M/s Chhindwara Fuels, filed on 16/03/1985 that the schedules to this affidavit contain certain facts and figures and it is stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit that the quoted figures "have been gathered from the monthly performance reports published by Western Coalfields Ltd.". It is repeated in paragraph 8 of the affidavit that "All the figures have been taken from the monthly performance reports of Western Coalfields Ltd.". Obviously the statement made in the application filed on 26/05/1985 is not consistent with what was stated in the affidavit of Shri Badri Prasad Ruia filed on 16/03/1985. Apart from this inconsistency, having considered the other relevant facts on this question I do not think the claimants really need production of three monthly performance reports. Obviously the statement made in the application filed on 26/05/1985 is not consistent with what was stated in the affidavit of Shri Badri Prasad Ruia filed on 16/03/1985. Apart from this inconsistency, having considered the other relevant facts on this question I do not think the claimants really need production of three monthly performance reports. The application is therefore rejected. In view of the above this submission against the Award cannot be accepted. (4) THE second contention raised was issues were not framed and there was no indication what was the finding. In this regard the following issues were framed : (1) (a) Are the respondents (Coal India Ltd.) obliged to supply the entire quantity of coal from Rakhikol Supply to the claimant (Chhindwara Fuels) and, if so, at what quantity per month ? (B) If no, are the respondents obliged to supply coal suitable for manufacturing hard coke from any other colliery ? (2) Did the claimant have any quota for the supply of coal from the respondents prior to the written agreement executed on or about 9/09/1980? (3) Are the coal which are being raised from Nandan and Damua Collieries suitable for manufacturing hard coke in coke oven units ? (4) (a) Has there been any shortfall in the offer to supply or supply of coal to the claimant as claimed in the statement of claim ? (B) If so, what direction should be given upon the respondents to make good the shortfall ? The arbitrator has dealt with each of the issues in the Award. (5) IN view of the matter we see no merit in the petition. The CMP is dismissed. The award should be given effect to. The award is made a rule of this court.