Usha Mehra ( 1 ) SHRI D. P. Kapoor, the Sole Arbitrator filed his award dated 6th October, 1986 in the matter of arbitration between M/s Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. M/s Advance Commercial Co. Ltd. On behalf of the claimant notice of filing of the award was accepted on 10th December, 1986 and on behalf of the respondent Mr. R. C. Bhalla, Advocate accepted notice of the filing of award. ( 2 ) VIDE application bearing IA. No. 763/87, the respondent has filed objections to the award, inter alia, on the ground that the Arbitrator mis- conducted himself and the proceedings by not affording reasonable opportunity to the respondent to defend the case. Because of being deprived an opportunity, the principles of natural justice has been vio- lated by the Arbitrator. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the objections, the breif facts of this case are that the parties agreed to have their matter adjudicated by an Arbitrator. As per the term of agreement, they were to nominate their respective arbitrators. The claimant M/s Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. appointed its arbitrator and asked the respondent to nominate his arbitrator within 15 days failing which the arbitrator appointed by the claimant would become the sole arbitrator. When the respondent failed to appoint their arbitrator, Mr. D. P. Kapoor, nominated arbitrator became the sole arbitrator. It is further the case of the petitioner/claimant that the arbitration proceedings remained stayed on account of a litigation pertaining to a claim against Fire Policy. These proceedings got revived after the Additional District Judge passed a decree in favour of the petitioner in April,1986. After the said decision, Shri D. P. Kapoor, the sole arbitrator issued notice to both the parties calling upon them to produce their oral as well as documentary evidence on 26th September,1986 at 4. 30 PM. This notice contained a warning that the matter being very old no adjournment would be granted and that ex parte proceedings would be taken up against the defaulting party. On 26th September, 1986, request for adjournment was received by the arbitrator from the respondent. The said request was allowed and the case was adjourned to 1st 0ctober,1986 at 4. 30 PM. At the time of adjourning the case, the arbitrator warned the parties that no further adjournment shall be granted. The proceedings were adjourned with the consent of the parties. The said request was allowed and the case was adjourned to 1st 0ctober,1986 at 4. 30 PM. At the time of adjourning the case, the arbitrator warned the parties that no further adjournment shall be granted. The proceedings were adjourned with the consent of the parties. ( 4 ) ON 1st 0ctober,1986, no one put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. The arbitrator waited till 5. 15 PM and then proceeded ex parte against the respondent. The claimant was asked to adduce evidence, if any, on 4th 0ctober,1986 at 4. 00 PM. On 4th 0ctober,1986 evidence was recorded and on 6th 0ctober,1986 the award was announced. ( 5 ) ON the other hand the case of the respondent/ Objector is that when Shri D. P. Kapoor issued notice on 4th September,1986, Shri B. S. Khosla, nominated arbitrator of the respondent/ Objector had already expired. Therefore, there was no question of negligence on the part of Shri B. S. Khosia to act as the arbitrator. In fact, in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act bearing Suit No. 70/69, parties had agreed to withdraw the suit and get their matter adjudicated through the named arbitrator. Since, Shri B. S. Khosia had expired, opportunity ought to have been given to the Objector to name another arbitrator. But this was deprived. On 26th September,1986, adjournment was sought because of the engagement ceremony of the Lawyer s daughter. No arbitration proceedings took place from 1969 till 1986. But for adjourning the matter on one date, the arbitrator made remarks "no further adjournment will be given", which shows that he was biased. Moreover, on 26th September, 1986, he had only mentioned "no further adjournment will be granted since the matter is pending for a long time". This does not Indicate the intention to proceed ex parte for non-appearance. As per law, the arbitrator was required to issue notice before proceeding ex parte. Failure to give such a notice proves mis- conduct on the part of the arbitrator. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent was habitual absentee. The arbitrator being the Chartered Accountant of the "petitioner has not acted impartial. The rule of natural justice has been ignored by him by accepting evidence behind the back of the objector. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the p-arties and perused the record. The arbitrator being the Chartered Accountant of the "petitioner has not acted impartial. The rule of natural justice has been ignored by him by accepting evidence behind the back of the objector. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the p-arties and perused the record. It is well settled principle of law that if the arbitrator mis-conducted himself or the proceedings then such an award is liable to be set aside. How, he mis- conducted, for that the objector has to establish from the arbitration proceedings itself that arbitrator, firstly, accepted the evidence behind the back of the objector and secondly the arbitrator did not afford reasonable opportunity to the objector. Thirdly, he rendered the award for consideration and fourthly the award was rendered with jurisdiction i. e. after the expiry of the period for making such award. ( 7 ) NOW we have to see whether the arbitrator committed any of the above conduct constituting mis-conduct. Mr. Bhalla s contention that the arbitrator recorded the evidence behind objector s back are not borne out from the arbitration proceedings. In this case the date was fixed on 26th September,1986 after giving notice to the parties. The representative of the objector was present as has been admitted by the objector. In his presence and on his request, the proceedings were adjourned to 1st october, 1986. Moreover, it was made clear while adjourning the hearing that no further opportunity would be given. Despite this warning and despite having noted the next date, no one put in appearance on behalf of the objector nor made any enquiry, therefore, ex parte proceedings held thereafter. After proceeding the objector ex parte on 1st 0ctober,1986, it was not necessary for the arbitrator to issue further notice. Hence, it cannot be said that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice nor it can be said that the arbitrator recorded the evidence at the back of the objector. Hence, reliance by the objector on the decision of this Court in the case of Wazir Chand Karan Chand Vs. Union of India, AIR 1989 Delhi 175 and of the Supreme Court in the case of Payyavula Vengamma Vs. Payyavula Kesanna and ors. AIR 1953 SC 21 are of no help to the objector. In the case of Wazir Chand Karan Chand (supra), the facts were totally different. Union of India, AIR 1989 Delhi 175 and of the Supreme Court in the case of Payyavula Vengamma Vs. Payyavula Kesanna and ors. AIR 1953 SC 21 are of no help to the objector. In the case of Wazir Chand Karan Chand (supra), the facts were totally different. In that case hearing before the Arbitrator was concluded on 21st March,1984 and formal extension was given upto 5th July,1984 to make and publish the award. However, in June,1984, the arbitrator asked the opposite side on telephone to deliver some site plan to the arbitrator and relying on this site plan, he made and published his award. It was in this background the Court observed that the arbitrator acts as a quasi-judicial authority and is not supposed to ask either of the party on telephone to deliver some documents behind the back of the other party. Moreover, on 25th August,1984, a further extension of time was given. This was also done without any notice to the plaintiff and the representative of the plaintiff. As per record of the case, after the extension of time, there was no hearingt yet there appeared adocument dated 1-8/9-1984 giving some calculations relating to service arears of diggies at Bhiwani Junction. This document was also taken on record without any notice and at the back of the respondent. It was in this background, the Court observed that this action of the arbitrator is clearly prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff and was in utter violation of the principles of natural justice which renders the proceedings void. In Payyavula Kesanna (supra) the Supreme Court was concerned where the arbitrator took statements from each of the party in the absence of the other and made his award. It was in this background the Supreme Court held that it is one of the elementary principles of the administration of justice that a party should not be allowed to use any means whatsoever to influence the mind of the arbitrator. But that is not the case in hand. Since the objector chooses not to appear, the arbitrator had to proceed ex parte against him and record the evidence in the absence of the objector. To my mind, the arbitrator in this case did not act in the manner by which it can be said that he violated the principles of natural justice. Since the objector chooses not to appear, the arbitrator had to proceed ex parte against him and record the evidence in the absence of the objector. To my mind, the arbitrator in this case did not act in the manner by which it can be said that he violated the principles of natural justice. He proceeded the objector ex parte on 1st 0ctober,1986 but even then did not make and publish the award on the same day. He recorded the ex parte evidence on 4th 0ctober,1986 on which date also no one on behalf of the objector appeared. The arbitrator still did not annouce his award but waited till 6th 0ctober,1986, when he made and published the award. No one appeared on behalf of the objector on any subsequent dates. Therefore, in view of the facts stated above it cannot be said that the arbitrator mis-conducted himself or the proceedings. In fatill date, the objector has not been able to furnish any good cause or sufficient reason for his non-appearance on 1st 0ctober,1986 nor has been able to furnish any explanation for his not enquiring even subsequently from the arbitrator as to what happened to the case. For this act of the objector, arbitrator cannot be blamed. Moreover, once the objector had been giving the warning that if on the next date he failed to appear no further opportunity would be given. This warning enabled the arbitrator to proceed ex parte against the objector when he failed to appear on 1st 0ctober,1986. Reference in this regard can be had to the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Banwari Lal Garodia Vs. Joylal Hargulal, AIR 1956 Cal 467 . ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I find no merits in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. The award dated 6th 0ctober,1986 made and published by Shri D. P. Kapoor, sole arbitrator is hereby made a rule of the Court. Parties are left to bear their own costs.