JUDGMENT Hazari, J. : This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.4.92. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act filed by the appellant praying for setting aside the award dated 21.2.90 passed by the Joint Arbitrators. The said award was a non-seeking award. The claimant before the Joint Arbitrators made a claim for a sum of Rs. 61,57,883.25p. under different heads of claim. The claimant also made a further claim amounting to Rs. 3,30,000/- by way of additional claim. The respondent made a counter-claim for Rs. 59,83,518.50p. By the said award the Joint Arbitrators made an award in favour of the claimant for a sum of Rs. 8,38,000/- and also made an award against additional claim amounting to Rs. 37,000/- and a further sum was awarded amounting to Rs. 78,789/- by way of refund of the security deposit. 2. Some difference arose between the parties and there was an arbitration clause. Pursuant to the said arbitration clause the respondent nominated one S. Baidyanath as its Arbitrator and the petitioner nominated one U. S. Prosad as its Arbitrator. The Joint Arbitrators appointed an Umpire and thereafter entered into the reference. 3. Two points were placed before us by Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the appellant. Firstly, that the Joint Arbitrators closed the arbitration proceeding without informing that the sitting of the arbitration was closed and abruptly and hastily passed an award and thereby has misconducted themselves and also the proceeding, and also made violation of the principles of natural justice. The second point urged by Mr. Chatterjee is that the Joint Arbitrators entertained the additional claim which was made on 1.12.89 after the filing of the counter-claim on 29.9.89 and after closing the arbitration sitting in November, 1989 passed a sum of Rs. 37,000/- in the said award. It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the said additional claim was beyond the scope of the arbitration and as such the Joint Arbitrators mis-conducted themselves and the proceeding. It is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the two sittings were held in Assam and thereafter there were two sittings at Madras and after the Madras sittings the Arbitrators directed the parties to give certain particulars by 5.2.90 and thereafter the Arbitrators were to meet at Calcutta between 19th and 21st February, 1990. It is further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the two sittings were held in Assam and thereafter there were two sittings at Madras and after the Madras sittings the Arbitrators directed the parties to give certain particulars by 5.2.90 and thereafter the Arbitrators were to meet at Calcutta between 19th and 21st February, 1990. The Arbitrators never informed the parties that the arbitration was closed and they were going to pass an award. It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that it is the bounden duty of the Arbitrators to inform the parties by notice and/or by implication that the arbitration proceeding was going to be closed and the Arbitrators were going to pass an award. After the sitting at Madras, it is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee, parties were kept in dark and only certain particulars were to be forwarded and the parties forwarded those particulars and never thought that the arbitration proceeding was closed. . 4. Mr. Chatterjee also referred to the correspondence, i. e., letter dated 18.1.90 and submitted that there is no indication that there will be no sitting of the arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration proceeding was closed hastily and the said steps taken by the Arbitrators were devoid of natural justice. In the said letter dated 18.1.90 the Arbitrators informed that they will meet at Calcutta but there was no notice that there will be sitting at Calcutta. 5. Mr. Chatterjee relied upon the decisions reported in (1) AIR 1914 PC 105, Mt. Amir Begam v. Sye B. Hasan & Ors., and (2) 1991(1) CLJ 8 , Rudra Bilas Kisan Chini Mills Ltd. v. Texmaco Ltd. Mr. Chatterjee also referred to a passage from Russel on Arbitration (20th Edition) at p. 265, which reads as follows : "If, though there has been some needless delay, an arbitrator does not give the party who was caused it proper 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 the award aside." 6. Mr. Chatterjee also relied upon the decision reported in (3) AIR 1958 Andhra Pradesh 384, Chinoy Chalani and Co. & Ors. v. Y. Anjiah. In paragraph 12 of the said decision it has been observed as follows : "12. There is yet another point raised in relation to the nature of transactions between the parties. Mr. Chatterjee also relied upon the decision reported in (3) AIR 1958 Andhra Pradesh 384, Chinoy Chalani and Co. & Ors. v. Y. Anjiah. In paragraph 12 of the said decision it has been observed as follows : "12. There is yet another point raised in relation to the nature of transactions between the parties. It is argued that the transactions in question were in their nature Badala transactions cloaked though they may be in any other form and that as those badala transactions are prohibited by law, they would not go to arbitration in the same way as no court would enforce contracts against public policy. The learned trial Judge has dealt at length and has found that the transactions. Having regard to the material on record we see no reason to differ. We are then referred to the question of misconduct. As the appeal fails on the ground of jurisdiction itself, we think it unnecessary to enter into a detailed discussion in this regard. Suffice it to say, that we agree with the conclusions arrived at by the trial court in relation to the acts of judicial misconduct. We are firmly of the opinion that the arbitrators should perform their quasi-judicial functions in a judicial manner and should not make a farce of the enquiry before them. They should give full opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence and also allow them to be heard. In this case it is clear from the evidence that the defendant was given an opportunity to file the statement within three days and though that statement was filed the arbitrators without going through the same and without giving an opportunity to the defendant to be heard or fixing a further date for hearing gave their award and no date was fixed even for the award. Having regard to the evidence of Syed Yousif it is impossible to hold that the award was passed after full enquiry. The Court below has held that the arbitrators are guilty of judicial misconduct. We see no reason to differ from this conclusion". 7. Mr. Having regard to the evidence of Syed Yousif it is impossible to hold that the award was passed after full enquiry. The Court below has held that the arbitrators are guilty of judicial misconduct. We see no reason to differ from this conclusion". 7. Mr. Anindya Mitra, learned Advocate for the respondent, submitted that from the sitting at Assam and Madras and also from the correspondence it is clear that the arbitration was concluded and only the Arbitrators decided to meet together at Calcutta for the purpose of making and publishing the award and, as such, it cannot be said that the Arbitrators did not close the arbitration proceeding. So far as the Counter-claim is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Anindya Mitra that the Counter-claim is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Anindya Mitra that the Counter-claim was referred to by the Arbitrators so far as the appellant is concerned and the appellant was directed to give notes on the Counter-claim in Query No.7 and the appellant answered and dealt with the Counter-claim in details. Nowhere the appellant took up the point that the same was beyond the scope of the arbitration proceeding nor the said point was taken before the learned Trial Judge, and, as such, the Counter-claim was dealt with by the Joint Arbitrators and the respondent took part in the said proceeding and the claims, additional claim and the Counter-claims were all adjudicated by the Joint Arbitrators. He further submitted that since the appellant has taken part in the proceeding and never raised any objection, they are estopped from raising any point at this stage. 8. Mr. Mitra relied upon the decision reported in (4) AIR 1988 SC 2045 , M/s. Neelkantan & Bros. Construction v. Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Salem & Ors., where paragraph 2 reads as follows :– "2. Shri A. K. Sen, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged before us that once an arbitrator had entered into reference, the next incumbent could not conclude the said arbitration proceeding without a fresh agreement. In the facts of this case, as the petitioner had knowledge of the alleged defect and had acquiesced in the proceeding before the successor, namely, Thiru Cornelius, we are of the opinion, that this contention of Shri Sen cannot be entertained. It was contended that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. This objection cannot be entertained. In the facts of this case, as the petitioner had knowledge of the alleged defect and had acquiesced in the proceeding before the successor, namely, Thiru Cornelius, we are of the opinion, that this contention of Shri Sen cannot be entertained. It was contended that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. This objection cannot be entertained. If the parties to the reference either, agree before hand to the method of appointment, or afterwards acquiesce in the appointment made, with full knowledge of all the circumstances, they will be precluded from objecting to such appointment as invalidating subsequent proceedings. Attending and taking part in the proceedings with full knowledge of the relevant fact will amount to such acquiescence, explains Russel on Arbitration, 18th Edition at page 105. This was stated by the Judicial Committee long ago in (5) Chowdhury Murtaza Hossein v. Mussumat Bibi Bechunnissa, (1987) 3 Ind. App 209. See also the observations of P. B. Mukharji, J., in the decision of the Calcutta High Court in (6) Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Corpn. of Calcutta, AIR 1956 Cal 470 at p. 472. This Court held in (7) N. Challappan v. Secy. Kerala State Electricity Board, 1975(1) SCC 289 : AIR 1975 SC 230 that acquiescence defeated the right of the appellant at a later stage. See also the observations of this Court in Prasun Roy v. Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority, (1982) 2 Scale 125. See also Russell on Arbitration, 20th Edition, pages 432-435. Shri Sen contended that no notice was issued after the appointment of the new arbitrator. This was factually incorrect, as mentioned before. Then, it was said that the award was bad as it did not consider all the claims. This also cannot be entertained. It must be assumed that the arbitrator had considered all the evidence adduced before him. There was no disregard of any principle of law. There was nothing to indicate that the arbitrator had not considered all the evidence. Unless there was a patent mistake of law and gross mis-statement of facts resulting in miscarriage of justice or of equity, the award remains unassailable. In this case the arbitrator gave no reason for the award. There is no legal proposition which is the basis of the award, far less a legal proposition which is erroneous. There is no appeal from the verdict of the arbitrator. In this case the arbitrator gave no reason for the award. There is no legal proposition which is the basis of the award, far less a legal proposition which is erroneous. There is no appeal from the verdict of the arbitrator. The Court cannot review, in such circumstances, the award and correct any mistake in the adjudication by the arbitrator." 9. Mr. Mitra also referred to the decision reported in (8) AIR 1988 SC 2018 . State of Orissa & Ors. v. Lall Bros. Mr. Mitra also relied upon the decision reported in (9) AIR 1987 SC 2316 . Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar & Ors., the paragraph 5 of the said decision reads as follows : – "5. It is familiar but requires emphasis that Section 1 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in its regour is not intended to apply to proceedings before an arbitrator. P. B. Mukharji, J. as the learned Chief Justice then was, expressed the above view in (10) Ebrahim Kassam Cochinwall v. Northern Indian Oil Industries Ltd, AIR 1951 Cal 230 and we are of the opinion that this represents the correct statement of law on this aspect. Lord Goddard, C. J. in (11) Mediterranean & Eastern Export Co. Ltd v. Fortreds Fabrics Ltd. (1948) 2 All ER 186 observed at pp. 188/189 of the report as follows : “A man in the trade who is selected for his experience would be likely to know and indeed to be expected to know the fluctuations of the market and would have plenty of means of informing himself or refreshing his memory on any point on which he might find it necessary so to do. In this case according to the affidavit of sellers they did take the point before the Arbitrator that the Southern Aftican market has slumped. Whether the buyers contested that statement does not appear but an experienced Arbitrator would know or have the means of knowing whether that was so or not and to what extent and I see no reason why in principle he should be required to have evidence on this point any more than on any other question relating to a particular trade. It must be taken I think that in fixing the amount that he has, he has acted on his own knowledge and experience. It must be taken I think that in fixing the amount that he has, he has acted on his own knowledge and experience. The day has long gone by when the Courts looked with jealousy on the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators. The modern tendency is in my opinion more especially in commercial arbitrations, to endeavour to uphold awards of the skilled persons that the parties themselves have selected to decide the questions at issue between them. If an arbitrator has acted within the terms of his submission and has not violated any rules of what is so often called natural justice the Courts should be slow indeed to set aside his award. This in our opinion is an appropriate attitude." 10. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and also the relevant papers and the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. It appears that the Joint Arbitrators met at Calcutta on 19.2.90 and the said fact was known to both the parties. One of the Arbitrators was the General Manager, who is now working with the appellant. The parties never raised any point nor approached the Arbitrators that they wanted to argue the matter, but as a matter of fact the appellant in their notes have made written submissions about the merits and prayed that the claim should be rejected. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the parties took the full opportunity to place their case and never wanted a further hearing and, as such, it cannot be said that the Joint Arbitrators hastily closed the proceeding and has acted beyond the principles of natural justice and/or misconducted themselves in the proceeding in any way whatsoever. 11. So far as the additional claim is concerned, the parties took part in the proceeding, never raised any objection and produced documents and gave statements in answer to the Arbitrators query and thereafter an award was passed for the sum of Rs. 37,000/- on account of additional claim and now the appellants have raised this point only before this Court and not even before the learned Single Judge of this Court. No doubt, the agreement between the parties comprised that all disputes between the parties will be referred to arbitration. 37,000/- on account of additional claim and now the appellants have raised this point only before this Court and not even before the learned Single Judge of this Court. No doubt, the agreement between the parties comprised that all disputes between the parties will be referred to arbitration. There is no doubt that the additional claim was also one of the claims arising out of the contract, which provided an arbitration clause. The only thing urged on behalf of the appellant is that the additional claim was beyond the scope of the arbitration and, as such, the portion which has been awarded, i. e., the sum of Rs. 37,000/- should be deducted from the award and the said claim should be sent back and be tried by a separate arbitration proceeding. 12. We have carefully considered the matter and in our view, that will be an idle formality as the parties had full opportunity to place their respective cases and the Joint Arbitrators who were appointed by the parties, after due consideration, passed the award. Accordingly, we hold that by considering the Counter-claim and allowing a part of the Counter-claim, the Joint Arbitrators did not misconducted themselves or in the proceeding. The appeal, therefore, fails. There will be no order as to costs. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the appellant, prays for stay of operation of this order for a period of one week, which prayer is considered and rejected. Chakravarty, J. : I agree.