Sat Pal ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed on behalf of M/s. Charanjit Kochar (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) under Section14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and ithas been prayed in this petition that the respondents 2 and 3 who were theco-arbitrators in this case be directed to file original award alongwith arbitration proceedings in this Court and thereafter the matter may be proceededwithin accordance with law. After the award and proceedings were filed,notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties. Thereafter objectionswere filed by the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (hereinafter referred toas DESU) vide 1. A. 2456/89. The objections have been controverted by thecontractor in their reply to the said I. A. The following issues wereframed: (I) Whether the award is liable to be set-aside on the objectionsraised in the objection petition? (II) Relief. ( 2 ) AS directed by the Court, both the parties have filed an affidavitin support and in opposition to the objections against the award. ( 3 ) MR. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the DESUsubmitted that the learned Arbitrators had misconducted themselves inasmuch as they had not given a speaking award though they were required todo so in terms of NIT General Conditions of the Contract. He furthersubmitted that the award did not show that the counter claim was consideredby the arbitrators. He further submitted that though in terms of the award,the arbitrators had inspected the site but the proceedings of the inspectionwere not available in the arbitration proceedings. He also submitted thatduring the pendency of the arbitration proceedings one of the partners of thecontractor-firm, namely, Shri Charanjit Kochbar expired on 7/02/1989 and the arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction by permitting the LRs ofthe deceased to be brought on record to pursue the case. Lastly he submittedthat the arbitration proceedings showed that the same were not conductedby both the arbitrators on certain dates. In view of these facts the learnedcounsel contended that the arbitrators had misconducted themselves and assuch the award was liable to be set aside. In support of his contention,learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Courtreported in the case of Continental Construction Co. Ltd. v. State ofmadhya Pradesh, AIR 1988 S. C. 1166. ( 4 ) MR. In view of these facts the learnedcounsel contended that the arbitrators had misconducted themselves and assuch the award was liable to be set aside. In support of his contention,learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Courtreported in the case of Continental Construction Co. Ltd. v. State ofmadhya Pradesh, AIR 1988 S. C. 1166. ( 4 ) MR. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contractors, however, submitted that in terms of the NIT General Conditions ofcontract, the arbitrators were not required to give a speaking award. Sincethere was no requirement of the contract to give a speaking award,the award cannot be set aside on the ground that it was not a speakingaward. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a judgment ofthe Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reported in the case ofraipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors, AIR 1990s. C. 1426. Lsarned Counsel further submitted that the award itself showedthat the claims and counter claims of both the parties were considered. Regarding site inspection by the arbitrators, the learned Counsel drew myattention to the proceedings dated 8/01/1986 and 22/02/1986. Regarding the objections in respect of the death of one of the partnersduring the pendency of the proceedings, the learned counsel drew myattention to Section 42 of the Partnership Act which reads as follows : "42. Dissolution on the happening of certain contigencies : Subjectto contract between the partners a firm is dissolved- (a) if constituted for a fixed term, by the expiry of the term; (b) if constituted to carry out one or more adventures or undertakings, by the completion thereof; (c) by the death of a partner; and (d) by the adjudication of a partner as an insolvent. " ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel contended that it is subject to the contractbetween the partners, a firm is dissolved by the death of a partner and inthe present case in the partnership deed it has clearly been stated that ifduring the continuance of the partnership any partner dies, the survivingpartner or partners shall take over the business and shall succeed to the shareof the deceased partners. He, therefore, contended that keeping in view thecontract between the partners, the arbitrators decided that Shri B. Kochharcould represent the contractors-firm as partner in the arbitration matterbefore them. He further submitted that the proceedings clearly showedthat the same were conducted before both the arbitrators. He, therefore, contended that keeping in view thecontract between the partners, the arbitrators decided that Shri B. Kochharcould represent the contractors-firm as partner in the arbitration matterbefore them. He further submitted that the proceedings clearly showedthat the same were conducted before both the arbitrators. Lastly, he contended that since the award was a non-speaking one, the respondent-DESUcould not be permitted to analyse reasons of the arbitrators for making theaward. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel placed reliance ona judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of M/s. Hindbuilders v. U. O. I. , AIR 1990 SC 1340 . He also contended that it was notmisconduct on the part of the arbitrators to come to an erroneous decisionwhether their error was one of fact or law. In support of this contentionhe placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in thecase of Food Corporation of India v. Jogginderpal Mohinderpal, AIR 1989sc 1263. ( 6 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions madeby the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Fromthe NIT General Conditions of Contract, I do not find any clause whichrequires that the award should be a speaking one. The contract of agreementbetween the parties also does not contain any such clause. As held by thesupreme Court in the case of Raipur Development Authority (supra) anaward is not liable to be remitted or set-aside merely on the ground that noreasons have been given in its support except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submissions or an order made by the Court requiresthat the Arbitrator should give reasons for the award. Since there was nosuch requirement in the present case, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the DESU that the arbitrators wererequired to give the reasons. ( 7 ) FURTHER from the award itself I find that the amount awarded bythe Arbitrator is in full and final settlement of claims and counter-claims ofboth the partics. In view of this there is no merit in the submission madeby the learned Counsel for the objector that the counter claims have notbeen considered. ( 7 ) FURTHER from the award itself I find that the amount awarded bythe Arbitrator is in full and final settlement of claims and counter-claims ofboth the partics. In view of this there is no merit in the submission madeby the learned Counsel for the objector that the counter claims have notbeen considered. ( 8 ) AS regards the objections that the proceedings have not beenrecorded in respect of the site inspection, I have perused the proceedingsdated 8/01/1986 and 22/02/1986 of the arbitrators and fromthese proceedings I find that on 8/01/1916 in the presence of boththe parties it was decided to have the site inspection and the proceedingsdated 22/02/1986 show that the work site was inspected on 11. 1. 86by the arbitrators in the presence of both the parties. From the proceedings,i do not find that the site was inspected to examine a particular aspect of thedispute fur which proceedings were required to be recorded. Even otherwisei cannot analyse the reasons of the arbitrators for making the award whenno such reasons have been stated in this award. The objection is, therefore,without any merit. ( 9 ) AS regards the objections of the respondent-DESU that thearbitrators have exceeded their jurisdiction in permitting the survivingpartners of the contractors-firm to represent the case, I do not find any forceeven in this objection. In the proceedings dated 24/02/1989, Clause18 of the partnership deed has been reproduced. From this clause it is clearthat in the case of death of one of the partners, the surviving partner was totake the business and he was entitled to succeed to share of the deceasedpartner in the capital and assets of partnership and the death of a partnershall not dissolve the partnership as to the others. In view of Clause 18 ofthe partnership deed and Section 42 of the Partnership Act, the arbitratorswere justified to allow the surviving partner to represent the contractors-firmin the proceedings. Again I do not find any merit in the objection of therespondent No. 1 that the proceedings. Again I do not find any merit in theobjection of the respondent No. 1 that the proceedings were not conductedbefore both the arbitrators on many dates of hearing. In fact the learnedcounsel for the objector could not point out any proceedings which were notconducted before both the arbitrator. ( 10 ) IN view of the above discussion, the objections contained inia 9456/89 are dismissed. In fact the learnedcounsel for the objector could not point out any proceedings which were notconducted before both the arbitrator. ( 10 ) IN view of the above discussion, the objections contained inia 9456/89 are dismissed. Objections against the award having beendismissed, the award dated 14/04/1989 is made rule of the Court. Let a decree be drawn in terms of the award. The award will form a partof the decree. I further direct that in case the decretal amount is notpaid to the Contractor within two months from the date of the decree,the contractor will be entitled to interest @ 12% p. a. from the dateof decree till realisation. The parties are, however, left to bear their owncosts. Petition dismissed.