Mr. Chaudhry,j. ( 1 ) BY an agreement in writing dated 30. 1. 1984 M/s. Hemkunt Builders Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the Objector) entered into anagreement with Punjabi University, Patiala for construction of Holiday Homeof Punjabi University, Patiala at Mussorie. The terms and conditions wereincorporated in the agreement which also contained an arbitration Clause,being Clause No. 11 in the following terms :clause 11: "in case there is any dispute of any nature whatsoever relatingto the terms and conditions, interpretation, performance/non-per-formance of this agreement, or arising therefrom or touching it inany way, the same shall be referred by any party of this agreementto the sole arbitration of the Vice Chancellor of the Punjabiuniversity, Patiala, or any person nominated by him, for thispurpose agreeable to both the parties aad the arbitrator will giveaward in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940,which will be final and binding on the parties. " ( 2 ) CERTAIN disputes arose between the parties out of the execution ofthe said agreement. The objector filed a petition under Section 20 of theindian Arbitration Act being Suit No. 47-A/1985 in this Court for referenceof disputes in terms of arbitration agreement. The application was allowedand by order dated 23. 1. 1985 this Court referred the disputes to the solearbitration of Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, in the following words :the disputes inter se M/s. Hemkunt Builders, Punjabiuniversity and Ajit Singh Oberoi are consequently referred to thearbitration of the Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University or hisnominee as arbitrator and his award will be binding on the parties. Let an award be delivered within four months of the nomination ofthe arbitrator by the Vice Chancellor or his agreeing to act as suchhimself. " ( 3 ) MR. S. S. Johl, the then Vice Chancellor of the Punjabi University,patiala, by his letter dated 23. 9. 1985 informed the Objector that in view ofthe judgment delivered by Delhi High Court in Suit No. 47-A/1985, thedisputes infer se M/s. Hemkunt Builders and Punjabi University had beenreferred to the arbitration of Vice Chancellor of Punjabi University or hisnominee as arbitrator. It was also mentioned in the letter that he wouldhimself act as arbitrator in the case and the Objector was advised to file theclaim within a period of 15 days from the issue of that letter. ( 4 ) IN pursuance to the letter, the Objector filed a claim dated28. 11. It was also mentioned in the letter that he wouldhimself act as arbitrator in the case and the Objector was advised to file theclaim within a period of 15 days from the issue of that letter. ( 4 ) IN pursuance to the letter, the Objector filed a claim dated28. 11. 1985 before Shri S. S. Johl, Sole Arbitrator. Thereafter the Objectormoved a petition under Sections 5 and 11 of the Arbitration Act for removalof the arbitrator. In the meantime the time for making of the award hadsince expired, so an application on behalf of Punjabi University, Patiala wasalso filed in this Court for extension of time under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, being O. M. P. No. 4/1986. In this O. M. P. the Objector also movedan application for removal of the arbitrator and stay of the arbitrationproceedings. The O. M. P. and the application of the petitioner came upfor hearing on 2. 5. 1986 before this Court, and the following order waspassed: "i. A. 1641/86: (Under Sec. 28 of Arb. Act)Called out second time but none present for the petitionerdespite service on petitioner s Counsel. So, petitioner is proceededagainst ex parte in respect of this application an, , an ex parte orderis passed on this application whereby time for making the award bythe Arbitrator is extended by four months from today. This orderbe communicated to the Arbitrator Dr. Bhagat Singh. Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala. I. A. 91186: (u/sec. 41 r/w II Sch. of Arb. Act ). Called out second time but none present on behalf of thepetitioner. Dismissed in default. " ( 5 ) THEREAFTER Dr. Bhagat Singh, conducted the arbitration proceedingsas an Arbitrator and made his award on 1. 9. 1986, The arbitrator awardedthat a sum of Rs. 1,76,700. 00 was payable by the Objector to Punjabiuniversity, Patiala in full and final settlement of all the claims. The counterclaim of the Objector was dismissed except for a payment of Rs. 58. 250. 00. The Arbitrator filed the award in this Court which was registered as Suitno. 1930-A/1986. Notice of filing of the award was given to the parties. Theaward was accepted on behall of the Punjabi University, Patiala. But theobjector; being dissatisfied with the award, has filed objections for settingaside the award. ( 6 ) THE objections are being contested on behalf of the Punjabiuniversity. 1930-A/1986. Notice of filing of the award was given to the parties. Theaward was accepted on behall of the Punjabi University, Patiala. But theobjector; being dissatisfied with the award, has filed objections for settingaside the award. ( 6 ) THE objections are being contested on behalf of the Punjabiuniversity. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed; (1) Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the groundsmentioned in the objection petition ? (2) Relief. ( 7 ) THE parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence in theform of affidavits and documents. Despite opportunities having been given,the Objector did not file any affidavit by way of evidence. The matter washeard by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 16. 1. 1989. After hearing thelearned Counsel for the parties, the objections were dismissed and the awardwas made rule of the Court. The observations made by the Court are reproduced below for the sake of convenience : "the main objection raised to the award is that the petitionerwas denied the reasonable opportunity inasmuch as the arbitratorhad refused to adjourn the case on the ground of illness of Counselfor the petitioner. After the issues were framed, the objector wasgranted four weeks time to file evidence in form of affidavitsand documents by orders made on 4/02/1988. Theaffidavit and evidence was not filed and on request of learnedcounsel for the objector, further time of two weeks afterre-opening of the Courts after summer vacations of the year 1988was granted and the case was adjourned to 29th August, 198 8 byorders made on 23/05/1988. The affidavit and the evidence wasnot again filed and the case was adjourned for arguments to today. The position continues to remain the same. The result is that thereis no evidence on record to show that the objector was not grantedthe reasonable opportunity to put forth its case before the arbitrator. No other objection to the award has been pressed. Accordingly,issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the respondent and against theobjector/petitioner. " ( 8 ) THE Objector, being dissatisfied with the order of learned Singlejudge, preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. Thedivision Bench disposed of the appeal by order dated 18. 7. No other objection to the award has been pressed. Accordingly,issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the respondent and against theobjector/petitioner. " ( 8 ) THE Objector, being dissatisfied with the order of learned Singlejudge, preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. Thedivision Bench disposed of the appeal by order dated 18. 7. 1990, in thefollowing terms: "the main contention raised in the objections was that thearbitrator had misconducted the proceedings inasmuch as reasonable opportunity had not been granted by the arbitrator and thereafter an ex-parte award was made. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 16/01/1989has noticed that numerous opportunities were granted to theappellants to file affidavit and documents by way of evidence insupport of the objections. The learned Judge further observed thatas this opportunity was not availed of, the result was that therewas no evidence on record to show that the objector was notgranted reasonable opportunity to put forth its case before thearbitrator. This conclusion of the learned Single Judge obviouslyflows from the fact that no evidence by way of affidavit or otherwise was filed in support of the objections. There is nothing in the order to show that the attention of thelearned Single Judge was drawn to the fact that the Arbitrationproceedings were before him. The record of the Arbitrator woulditself show whether reasonable opportunity had been granted to theappellants or not. By way of evidence there is little which theobjector could have added to what was contained or stated in therecord of the arbitration proceedings. In fact, the best evidence withregard to this aspect was the Arbitrator s record which, admittedly,was available before the learned Single Judge. After examining thisrecord the learned Judge could have come to the conclusion whichhe has arrived at. namely-that adequate opportunity had beengranted. But as the learned Single Judge has not referred to thisrecord, in our opinion, the order of the learned Single Judge shouldhe set aside and the case remanded to him for a fresh decision inview of the observations made by us hereinabove. " ( 9 ) NOW the matter lias been heard by me. Mr Dhir appearing forthe Objector wanted to raise ;i number of contentions. But Dr. Sidhu appearing for the University objected to it. The contention of Dr. " ( 9 ) NOW the matter lias been heard by me. Mr Dhir appearing forthe Objector wanted to raise ;i number of contentions. But Dr. Sidhu appearing for the University objected to it. The contention of Dr. Sidhu is that theonly point that was canvassed on behalf of the Objector before the learnedsingle Judge was that the Objector was denied reasonable opportunity inasmuch as the Arbitrator had refused to adjourn the case on the ground ofillness of Counsel For the petitioner and before the Appellate Court alsoonly tins point was canvassed. In view of this, no other point can be allowedto be urged or convassed on behalf of the objector. On the other hand, thecontention of Mr. Dhir is that he did not mike any statement before thelearned Single Judge, that no other objection to the award had to be pressed. ( 10 ) TN support of his contention Dr. Sidhu relied upon a judgment ofthe Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Bihar v. Mahabtr Lal and Others. reported in AIR 1964 SC Page 377. Tn this case the Supreme Court made thefollowing observations: "where a statement appears in the judgment of a Court that aparticular thing happened or did not happen before it, it ought notordinarily to be permitted to be challenged by a party unless boththe parties to the litigation agree that the statement is wrong or thecourt itself admits that the statement is erroneous. The remedy ofn party aggrieved is by way of review. "dr. Sidhu s contention is that if the statement attributed to thecounsel by the learned Single Judge was wrong, then Mr. Dhir shouldhave moved. in application before the learned Single Judge for review of theorder. ( 11 ) I have considered the relevant contentions of the parties. In myview the contention raised by Dr. Sidhu has force. The learned Single Judgemade an observation that no other point was pressed before him. However. in the interest of justice T am inclined to deal with the other points alsowhich are raised by Mr. Dhir, ( 12 ) THE first point raised by Mr. Dhir is that Dr. Bhagat Singh didnot exercise his option to act as an arbitrator in terms of Clause 11 and assuch he had no jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator. It was urged thatmr. Dhir, ( 12 ) THE first point raised by Mr. Dhir is that Dr. Bhagat Singh didnot exercise his option to act as an arbitrator in terms of Clause 11 and assuch he had no jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator. It was urged thatmr. S. S. Johl had indicated himself to act as an Arbitrator and had conveyedhis approval, to act as arbitrator, to the Objector. Dr. Bhagat Singh had notelected to act as an arbitrator or to appoint a nominee to act as an arbitratorin terms of the arbitration Clause. So he had no authority to act as anarbitrator. ( 13 ) DR. Sidhu refuted the contention raised by Mr. Dhir. He statedthat Dr. Bhagat Singh succeeded Mr. S. S. Johl as Vice Chancellor of theuniversity and the Court appointed him as the arbitrator. He accepted theappointment as an arbitrator and he did signify his intention to act as anarbitrator by a notice sent to the Objector. In support of this contention herelied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. P. G. Agencies v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 3298. wherein the Supreme Courtobserved as under: "the language of the provision is not that the partics intendedto supply the vacancy but on the other hand it is that the partiesdid not intend to supply the vacancy. In other words if the agreement is silent as regards supplying the vacancy, the law presumesthat the parties intended to supply the vacancy. To take the caseout of Section 8 (1) (b) what is required is not the intention of theparties to supply the vacancy but their intention not to supply thevacancy. "his contention is that it was not the intention of the parties that incase one Vice Chancellor resigns the vacancy is not to be supplied. ( 14 ) THE other authority relied upon by Dr. Sidhu is a judgment ofthe Calcutta High Court in the case of Bharat Construction Co. Ltd. v. Unionof India, AIR 1954 Calcutta 606. In this case it was held as under : "where a Major General is named to be an arbitrator in anarbitration agreement no vacancy would arise within the meaning ofsection 8 (1) (b) simply because the particular Major General whowas holding the office at the time of the contract ceased to holdthat office, if he was succeeded by a successor who was also a Majorgeneral. So long as the Major General was succeeded by a Majorgeneral in the particular office and so long as the course of suchsuccession was not broken by the introduction of an officer holdinga different rank, no vacancy in the office of the arbitrator wouldarise at all. A vacancy would arise only when the officer is no longera person, holding the rank of a Major General. " ( 15 ) I have considered the relevant contentions of the parties and havegiven my thoughtful consideration to the matter. In my opinion thecontention raised by Mr. Dhir is devoid of force. It appears that during thependency of O. M. P. 4/1985 Dr. S. S. Johl resigned and in his place Dr. Bhagatsingh was appointed as Vice Chuncellor of the Punjabi University. Patiala. The Court while extending the time for making the award specifically statedthat the order be communicated to the arbitrator Dr. Bhagat Singh. Vicechancellor, Punjabi University. Patiala. Thereafter Dr. Bhagat Singh. bynotice dated 21. 5. 1986 informed the Objector that he had fixed the hearingin the case, for 8. 6. 1986 and he was required to appear before him. Thenotice was in the following terms : "in accordance with the above orders of the Court, I am toinform you that in my capacity as Arbitrator, I have fixed the nexthearing in this case in the office of the Association of Indianuniversities, AIU House, 16, Kotla Marg, Kotla Road, New Delhi110 002, at 10. 30 a. m. on 8/06/1986. You are requested to kindlymake it convenient to attend. "in this notice, he referred to the order passed by this Court on7. 5. 1986 and thereafter he specifically mentioned that he was issuing thenotice in his capacity as Arbitrator. Under his signatures also he had writtenvice Chancellor and Arbitrator. In my opinion it is quite clear that he hadexercised his option to act as an arbitrator himself and in that capacity heinformed the Objector. In view of this I see no force in the contentionraised by Mr. Dhir and this contention is repelled. ( 16 ) THE other point that was canvassed by Mr. Dhir is that thearbitrator conducted the proceedings in a hurried manner and no reasonableopportunity was afforded to the Objector to participate in the proceedingsand present his case. In view of this I see no force in the contentionraised by Mr. Dhir and this contention is repelled. ( 16 ) THE other point that was canvassed by Mr. Dhir is that thearbitrator conducted the proceedings in a hurried manner and no reasonableopportunity was afforded to the Objector to participate in the proceedingsand present his case. It was further contended that no peremptory noticewas given to the Objector that in case he did not appear before the arbitrator, the arbitrator would proceed ex-parte. The award ex-parte given by thearbitrator is liable to be set aside and quashed. ( 17 ) IN support of his contention he relied upon a number of judgments. The first in line is the case of Juggi Lal v. General Fibre Dealers Ltd. :reported as AIR 1955 Cal 354 . In this case the Court held as under ; "the procedural rule applicable to arbitration proceedings ismore tolerant than the rule followed in Courts of law. Broadlystated, the principles governing the arbitrator s right to proceed ex-parte are;if a party to an arbitration agreement fails to appear at one ofthe sittings, the arbitrator cannot or. at least, ought not to. proceedex-parte against him at that sitting. Where the non-appearance wasaccidental or casual, the arbitrator ought ordinarily to proceedin the ordinary way, fixing another date of hearing and awaiting thefuture behaviour of the defaulting party. If. on the other hand, it appears that the defaulting party hadabsented himself with a view to preventing justice or defeating theobject of the reference, the arbitrator should issue a notice that heintends at specified time and place to proceed with the referenceand that if the party concerned does not attend he will proceed inhis absence. But, if after making such a peremptory appointmentand issuing such a notice, the arbitrator does not in fact proceedwith ex-parte on the day fixed, but fixes another subsequent date,he cannot proceed ex-parte on such subsequent date, unless heissues a similar notice in respect of that date as well. If he issues a similar notice and the party concerned does notappear, an award made ex-parte, will be in order. If he issues a similar notice and the party concerned does notappear, an award made ex-parte, will be in order. But if he does notissue such a notice on the second occasion, but nevertheless proceedsex-parte, the award will be liable to be set aside in spite of a noticeof a peremptory hearing having been given in respect of the earlierdate, subject, however, to the condition that prejudice was causedto the party against whom the ex-parte order was made. But thisduty to give notice of an intention to proceed ex-parte is not anabsolute duty. " ( 18 ) THE second judgment on which reliance is placed by Mr. Dhiris the case of Smt. Dulari Devi v. Rajendra Prakash; reported as AIR 1959allahabad 711. In this case the Court observed as under : "if it appears from the circumstances of the case that aparticular party is determined not to appear before the arbitratorsin any event, as when, he has openly repudiated either the referenceitself or the particular arbitrators and has shown no desire torecant, the arbitrators are not required to issue a notice of anintention to proceed ex-parte against such recusant person and mayproceed ex-parte and make a valid award without issuing a notice. The better course, however, even in such a case is to issue notice andgive the party concerned a chance to change his mind. It would alsonot be absolutely necessary that if one notice had been given thatthe proceedings would be ex-parte, in the other notice it should bespecifically mentioned that the proceedings would be ex-parte also. Whether such an intention should be mentioned or not and whatnotice would be sufficient may vary in different circumstances indifferent cases. " ( 19 ) THE other judgment on which the reliance is placed is the case oflovely Benefit Chit v. Purandutt-, reported as 1983 0 RLR 420 . In this case thefollowing observations were made : "if one of the parties belong to an out station and hasappointed Counsel and latter fails to appear, then intention toproceed ex parte should be notified to the party. If intention toproceed ex parte without notice and also failure to give noticeabout change of place of sitting are likely to cause prejudice thenomission amounts to misconduct of arbitrator. " ( 20 ) RELIANCE is also placed upon a judgment in the case of Union ofindia v. D. K. Gupta-, reported in 1978 RLR 476 . If intention toproceed ex parte without notice and also failure to give noticeabout change of place of sitting are likely to cause prejudice thenomission amounts to misconduct of arbitrator. " ( 20 ) RELIANCE is also placed upon a judgment in the case of Union ofindia v. D. K. Gupta-, reported in 1978 RLR 476 . In this case the Court ruledas under : "if arbitrator shows undue haste in giving award (withoutwaiting for decision of application under Sections 5 and 11) immediately after stay order against award is vacated, then it would bemisconduct. Arbitration proceeds are quasi-judicial and arbitrators must at in a judicial manner to avoid blemish on their conduct. An arbitration agreement cannot be superceded on the groundof delay in proceedings. Such an agreement, like any other agreement, can be avoided only if it is tainted with fraud, coercion,undue influence or its terms are unconscionable. If an agreementdoes not prohibit supply of vacancy of an arbitrator then it cannotbe superceded, simply on setting aside of the award". ( 21 ) REFERENCE is also made to a passage from russel on Arbitration 19th Edition, page 273, wherein it was observed, "if, though there has beensome needless delay, an arbitrator does not give the party who. has caused itproper opportunity to go into his case, but makes his award too hastily,without giving due notice of his intention to do so, the Court will set theaward aside". ( 22 ) ON the other hand the contention of Dr. Sidhu is that thearbitrator aforded reasonable opportunity to the Objector to attend thearbitration proceedings but despite that he opted to remain absent. Thearbitrator was justified in taking ex parte proceedings against the Objectorand making his award. The arbitrator did not act in undue haste andafforded proper and reasonable opportunity to the Objector to present hiscase. Despite that the Objector avoided to appear before the arbitrator andthe arbitrator was justified in making the ex parte award. ( 23 ) IN order to appreciate the relevant contentions of the parties itis necessary to give a brief resume of the facts which are necessary fordeciding the controversy. ( 24 ) BY notice dated 21. 5. 1986 Dr. Bhagat Singh fixed the hearing ofthe case for 8. 6. 1986 at 10 p. m. in the office of Association of Indianuniversities, 16, Kotla Marg, Kotla Road. New Delhi. The objector wasinformed about the date of hearing. ( 24 ) BY notice dated 21. 5. 1986 Dr. Bhagat Singh fixed the hearing ofthe case for 8. 6. 1986 at 10 p. m. in the office of Association of Indianuniversities, 16, Kotla Marg, Kotla Road. New Delhi. The objector wasinformed about the date of hearing. The arbitrator also informed theobjector by means of telegram. By telegram dated 6. 6. 1986 the objectorinformed the arbitrator that I. e had not exercised his option to act as anarbitrator under . . he Arbitration Clause and he had not succeeded Dr. S. S. Johl. The proceedings taken by him would be illegal and asked thearbitrator to cancel the date 8. 6. 1986 at Delhi. The arbitrator telegraphically informed the Objector that the arbitration proceedings would be heldon 8. 6. 1986 as scheduled. The objector also sent a registered letter to thearbitrator informing him that he had not elected to act as an arbitrator orappoint a nominee to act as an arbitrator in terms of Clause 1 1. As such hehad no locus standi to act as an arbitrator or consider himself to be anarbitrator. It was further stated in the letter that he had no jurisdictionto call the objector to appear before him. The arbitrator was warned thatin spite of the contention raised on behalf of the objector if he proceededwith the case on 8. 6. 1986 the same would he without jurisdiction and wouldbe challenged by him. The arbitrator conducted the proceedings on 8. 6. 1986,but none appeared before him on behalf of the Objector. Despite therequest made on behalf of flu- Counsel for Punjabi University to proceed ex-parte against the Objector, the arbitrator adjourned the peoceedings to24. 6. 1986. The Objector was duly informed about the proceedings conducted on 8. 6. 1986 and the next date of hearing i. e. 24. 6. 1986. On 24. 6. 1986,mr. Ajit Singh Oberoi appeared on behalf of the Objector and presented anapplication before the Arbitrator inter aha standing that he could not act asarbitrator till such time he acted under Clause 11 of the agreement andappointed himself to act as an arbitrator or to nominate any other person toact as an arbitrator. This contention was repudiated on behalf of the Counselfor the University and after hearing the Objector as well as the Counsel forthe University the application of the Objector was dismissed. He directedthe Objector to produce evidence in support of theirclaim. This contention was repudiated on behalf of the Counselfor the University and after hearing the Objector as well as the Counsel forthe University the application of the Objector was dismissed. He directedthe Objector to produce evidence in support of theirclaim. The Objectorstated before the Arbitrator that his Counsel Mr. Dhir was unwell andadmitted in a Nursing Home and as such he was unable to proceed with theevidence in the absence of his Counsel. Request was made that another datemay be given for that purpose. It was stated by the Objector that hiscounsel would not he available for another month on medical grounds andprayed that the date be given in the last week of July, 1986, and that thenext proceedings be held at Mussorie. The arbitrator acceded to the requestof the Objector and adjourned the proceedings to 26. 7. 1986. It was recorded in the proceedings dated 24. 6. 1986 that no separate notice would be sent. In the meanwhile, by letter dated 8. 7. 1986 Mr. Dhir informed the arbitratorthat after he was inducted as a Vice Chancellor he could not suo motu actas an arbitrator unless he had elected as such in terms of arbitration Clauseand obtained consent of the parties to his appointment. He further informed the arbitrator that he had been operated upon for detached ratinaand he had been advised 8-10 weeks rest by his Eye Surgeon. He would notbe in a position to move out of home and would be unable to attend theproceedings on 26. 9. 1986 at Mussorie. By letter dated 15. 7. 1986 the Arbitrator informed Mr. Dhir that the hearing in the case for 26. 7. 1986 wasfixed with the consent of the objector after a gap of one month on specificrequest of the Objector. The hearing would take place at Mussorie on26. 7. 1986 as scheduled and there would be no postponement of the hearing. It was further clarified that the Objector should be present on that dateotherwise ex parte proceedings would be taken on that date. On 24. 7. 1986the Objector also sent a telegram to the Arbitrator informing him that inview of the letter written by his Counsel it would not be convenient norsuitable to attend the proceedings on 26. 7. 1992 as the Counsel had beenadvised rest for 2 months. The result is that none appeared on behalf ofthe Objector before the Arbitrator on 26-7-1986. 7. 1986the Objector also sent a telegram to the Arbitrator informing him that inview of the letter written by his Counsel it would not be convenient norsuitable to attend the proceedings on 26. 7. 1992 as the Counsel had beenadvised rest for 2 months. The result is that none appeared on behalf ofthe Objector before the Arbitrator on 26-7-1986. The Counsel for theuniversity pressed the arbitrator to take ex parte proceedings against theobjector. However, in the interest of justice and fair-play the arbitratordecided to given another opportunity to the Objector to present their case atthe next hearing which was fixed for 10. 8. 1986 in the office of the Vicechancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala. The arbitrator by his letter dated29. 7. 1986 sent a copy of the proceedinos sheet dated 26. 7. 1986 and informedthe Objector about the next date of hearing i. e. 10. 8. 1986 at Patiala. It wasstated in the notice that in no case the hearing would be postponed as hehad to submit his report in the case before 2/09/1986 in terms ofthe order passed by Justice Jagdish Chandra, and also because he would beleaving for abroad on August 16-17 in connection with the Conferenceof Executive Heads of Universities of Commonwealth countries. In case ofdefault in appearance, the arbitrator would be taking up proceedings ex-parte and would make the order accordingly. The letter was sent byregistered A. D. post. However, it was received back with the report "intentionally avoiding to take delivery. " Again none appeared before thearbitrator on behalf of the Objector on 10. 8. 1986. Ex-parte proceedingswere taken in the case against the Objector and the case was heard by thelearned arbitrator ex parte. He further adjourned the case to 29. 8. 1986 inthe office of Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University. Patiala, for arguments. Ihave perused the proceedings dated 10. 8. 1986. The penultimate para of theproceedings dated 10. 8. 1986 reads as under : "i fix the date for next hearing on 29. 81986 at 3. 00 p. m. in theoffice of the Vice Chancellor. Punjabi University. Patiala for arguments. This will be the last meeting of the Arbitration case as Thave to submit the arbitration findings within the stipulated periodi. e. by 2. 9. 1986. Conies of these proceedings will be sent to theparties under registered post". By letter dated 12. 8. 81986 at 3. 00 p. m. in theoffice of the Vice Chancellor. Punjabi University. Patiala for arguments. This will be the last meeting of the Arbitration case as Thave to submit the arbitration findings within the stipulated periodi. e. by 2. 9. 1986. Conies of these proceedings will be sent to theparties under registered post". By letter dated 12. 8. 1986 the arbitrator informed the Objector that the nextbearing would be conducted in the office of the Vice Chancellor, Punjabiuniversity, Patiala, on 29. 8. 1986 at 3 p. m. and arguments of both the sideswould be heard on that date. The parties may, if so desired, submit thewritten arguments also in the meeting. This letter was sent by registereda. D. post. Alongwith this letter a copy of the proceedings dated 10. 8. 1986was also sent, which clearly indicated that on 29. 8. 1986 there would be thelast meeting, it was received back undelivered with the report "this office isfound always locked and the addressee is not available". On 29. 8. 1986 alsonobody appeared on behalf of the Objector. The arbitrator heard the arguments on behalf of the Punjabi University and fixed for pronouncement ofthe award on 1. 9. 1986. The Arbitrator informed the Objector by telegramdated 29. 8 1986. On 1. 9. 1986 also none appeared on behalf of the Objectorbefore the Arbitrator and the arbitrator announced the award on thatdate. ( 25 ) THE contention of Mr. Dhir is that the arbitrator conducted theproceedings in a hurried manner and no reasonable opportunity was affordedto the Objector. Despite the fact that the Counsel for the Objector was ill,the arbitrator did not adjourn the proceedings. Even no peremptory noticewas given by the arbitrator that in ease the Objector would not attend theproceedings ex parte decision would be taken. The contentions raised bymr. Dhir are refuted by Dr. Sidhu. ( 26 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matterand gone through the judgments relied upon by the Counsel, for the partiesvery carefully. To my mind the contention of Mr. Dhir is not well founded. The arbitrator conducted the proceedings on 8. 6. 1986, 24. 6. 1986, 10. 8. 1986. 29. 8. 1986 and 1. 9. 1986. Except on 24. 6. 1986 nobody appeared on behalf ofthe Objector before the Arbitrator. To my mind the contention of Mr. Dhir is not well founded. The arbitrator conducted the proceedings on 8. 6. 1986, 24. 6. 1986, 10. 8. 1986. 29. 8. 1986 and 1. 9. 1986. Except on 24. 6. 1986 nobody appeared on behalf ofthe Objector before the Arbitrator. The consistent stand which was taken bythe Objector was that the Arbitrator had not exercised his option to act as anarbitrator under Clause 11 of the Arbitration agreement and as such he hadno jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. He moved such application beforethe arbitrator on 24. 6. 1986 which was dismissed by the arbitrator. On therequest of the Objector the case was adjourned to 26. 7. 1986 at Mussorie. Onemonths time was given tothe Objector to make arrangement for presentinghis case at Mussorie. Thereafter the Objector, for reasons best known tohim absented himself and did not appear before the Arbitrator. Mr. Dhir didwrite a letter to the arbitrator informing him that he had undergone an eye-operation and had been advised rest for 2 months. In my view the Objectorshould have appeared before the Arbitrator himself and should have made apersonal request for adjournment of the case. If Mr. Dhir was not available, the Objector should have made some alternative arrangement or theobjector should have atleast appeared before the arbitrator and made arequest that his Counsel was unwell and that he would agree to the extensionof time fixed by the Court without prejudice to his contentions, for makingthe award and the proceedings be adjourned so as to enable him to procurethe assistance of his Counsel. If he had appeared before the arbitrator underprotest and such a request had been made before the Arbitrator, the arbitrator might have considered it and adjourned the proceedings. But theobjector throughout had been questioning the authority of the arbitrator toconduct the arbitration proceedings. The conduct of the Objector clearlyindicated that he had no intention to participate in the arbitration proceedings, Despite this the arbitrator acted fairly and afforded reasonableopportunity to the Objector to present his case. The proceedings wereadjourned a number of times to give a chance to the Objector to appearbefore him. But the Objector did not even when the courtesy to go beforethe Arbitrator and make a personal request for adjournment, in my opinion,under the circumstances, the arbitrator was justified an proceeding ex parteagainst the Objector. ( 27 ) THE other contention raised by Mr. But the Objector did not even when the courtesy to go beforethe Arbitrator and make a personal request for adjournment, in my opinion,under the circumstances, the arbitrator was justified an proceeding ex parteagainst the Objector. ( 27 ) THE other contention raised by Mr. Dhir that no peremptorynotice was given is also devoid of force. In all the notices it was specificallymentioned that if the Objector failed to appear before the Arbitrator, thearbitrator would proceed ex parte. No doubt in the notice dated11/12. 8. 1986 it was not specifically mentioned that in case of non-appearanceex parte proceedings would be taken. However, the copy of the proceedingsdated 10. 8. 1986 clearly indicated that on 29. 8. 1986 there would be the lastmeeting. But taking into consideration the facts, and circumstances of thiscase, I am of the considered opinion that the conduct of the Objector did notjustify peremptory notice for the hearing dated 29. 8. 1986. It appears fromthe circumstances of the case that the Objector was determined not to appearbefore the Arbitrator in any event. He had been openly repudiating theauthority of the arbitrator to proceed with the arbitration. He had shownno desire to recant. The arbitrator is not required to issue notice of intentionto proceed ex parte against such recusant person and may proceed ex parteand make a valid award without issuing such notice. If a party had no intention to appear before the Arbitrator, he cannot be allowed/permitted to urgethat the arbitrator did not give a peremptory notice. This contention of Mr. Dhir is also repelled. ( 28 ) FOR the reasons stated above I do not find any force in theobjections hied by the Objector and the same are dismissed. The award ismade a Rule of the Court and decree is passed accordingly. However, inthe circumstances of the case, I would leave the parties to bear their owncosts.