S.S. NIJJAR, J.:---This petition has been filed under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") with a prayer for setting aside the Award dated 10th February, 1997 made by the sole Arbitrator being Award No. 117 of 1997. 2. The petitioners are M/s. Hindustan Construction Corporation, a registered partnership firm of Engineers and Contractors having their office at 53, Sindhi Society, C.S.T. Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071. The respondents are M/s. Mazgaon Dock Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking and having their office at Mazagaon Dock, Mumbai-400 010. Certain disputes had arisen between the petitioners and the respondents in respect of the work of construction of workshop shed at Nhava Yard for the respondents. Under the Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the said disputes were referred to the Arbitration of one Shri G.G. Archik as sole Arbitrator, pursuant to the order dated 12-2-1988 of this Court. This order was passed in Arbitration Suit No. 3416 of 1987 filed by the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners had also filed Arbitration Petition No. 69 of 1991 under sections 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act to remove Shri G.G. Archik and to appoint some other person as an Arbitrator in his place. This petition was rejected by order dated 9th December, 1994. Thereafter the arbitration proceedings restarted before the Arbitrator. The petitioners had suggested draft issues on various claims of the petitioners. These draft issues were filed on 7th August, 1995. Copy of these draft issues has been annexed to the petition as Exhibit-A. By letter dated 12th September, 1996 the Arbitrator fixed the date of hearing on 25th September, 1996. On 21st September, 1996 the petitioners in their letter to the Arbitrator, requested that the date of hearing be fixed on 25th October, 1996. The Arbitrator, however fixed 16th December, 1996 as the date of next hearing. In the meeting held on that day, respondents, according to the petitioners, had filed revised counter claim, copy of which has been annexed as Exhibit-C to the petition. According to the respondents, Exhibits-C is merely a summary of the counter claim which had been filed by the respondents on 26th April, 1988. A reply to this counter claim had been filed by the petitioners on 16th August, 1988. According to the respondents, Exhibits-C is merely a summary of the counter claim which had been filed by the respondents on 26th April, 1988. A reply to this counter claim had been filed by the petitioners on 16th August, 1988. Relying on the averment that Exhibit-C was a revised counter claim, petitioners claimed that they were entitled to inspection of the documents. Thus by their letter dated 27th December, 1996 they sought inspection. On 23rd December, 1996 the respondents had written to the petitioners alleging that they were deliberately trying to delay the arbitration proceedings. In any event it was stated that they are prepared to give inspection. By their letter dated 27th December, 1996 the petitioners informed the Arbitrator that unless inspection is given, the hearing which was fixed for 28th December, 1996 would not serve any useful purpose. It was stated that the petitioners would not be in a position to reply to the counter claims of the respondents. It was stated that further hearing programme can be fixed in the matter after inspection of the documents has been given to the petitioners. By their letter dated 28th December, 1996 the respondents denied the allegations made by the petitioners. Inspite of this, the Arbitrator by his letter dated 30th December, 1996 informed the parties that he had decided not to hold any further hearing in the matter. The parties were directed to file their written submissions by 25th January, 1997. In response to this letter, the petitioners addressed a letter to the Arbitrator on 6th January 1997 clarifying the position and stating that the inspection had yet not been given on the documents. It was also stated that once inspection has been given the petitioners are desirous of making oral submission to the Arbitrator. In reply to this letter, the respondents on 11th January, 1997 submitted before the Arbitrator that the demand for inspection made by the petitioners is merely to delay the proceedings indefinitely. Inspite of that an offer is made that the respondents are prepared to allow inspection of the documents available with them whenever the petitioners approach them with prior confirmation. A prayer was made to the Arbitrator to make and publish the award at the earliest. Inspite of that an offer is made that the respondents are prepared to allow inspection of the documents available with them whenever the petitioners approach them with prior confirmation. A prayer was made to the Arbitrator to make and publish the award at the earliest. In this letter it was brought to the notice of the Arbitrator that during the hearing on 16th December, 1996 itself the Counsel for the respondents had made it clear that the submissions on behalf of the respondent were completed. The claim made by the petitioners about the revised statement of final accounts was refuted. It was submitted that the list presented was the list of the amounts claimed in the statement of claim submitted as long as 26th April, 1988. The petitioners had even given a reply to the aforesaid claims on 16th August, 1988. On 27th January, 1997 the petitioners wrote to the respondents giving three alternative dates for inspection. However, before the inspection could be completed the Award came to be made on 10th February, 1997. The award is attached, to the petition as Exhibit-J. 3. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. Before making any submissions on merits, it is submitted by Mr. Kamdar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to file a rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents. It is submitted that filing of the rejoinder is very necessary as the petitioners have denied the various averments made in the petition. It is also submitted that the ground of bias against the Arbitrator has been raised in ground (l) wherein it has been pleaded that on enquiry the petitioners have come to know that the Arbitrator was closely connected with the respondent and had also acted in several matters as the consultants for the respondent. He was also closely connected with the respondents in various capacities throughout his career. It is stated that this averment has been denied in the reply. Therefore, according to Mr. Kamdar, it is necessary to place on the record material to show the close relationship of the Arbitrator with the respondents. Apart from this, it is further submitted that the petition is only at the admission stage. The reply has been received by the Counsel for the petitioner only day before yesterday. Therefore, according to Mr. Kamdar, it is necessary to place on the record material to show the close relationship of the Arbitrator with the respondents. Apart from this, it is further submitted that the petition is only at the admission stage. The reply has been received by the Counsel for the petitioner only day before yesterday. Thus the hearing should not continue and the petition should not be finally disposed of at this stage only, at least not without the benefit of a rejoinder from the petitioners. 4. Having considered the aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Kamdar, the Court is of the view that there is hardly any justification for the filing of the rejoinder. It is a settled proposition of law that when a party comes to Court it is his bounden duty to make true and faithful disclosure of all the facts known to him. It cannot be disputed that the petitioners were aware of the alleged close relationship of the Arbitrator with the respondents during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. A perusal of ground (l) itself would be sufficient to indicate that this ground is being raised just for the sake of raising a ground of bias. In ground (k) reference is made to the hearing held on 16th December, 1996. The petitioners were unhappy with the extension of time granted by the Arbitrator. In ground (l) it is stated that after that decision they made enquiries to find out as to whether or not there is any connection between the Arbitrator and the respondents. Thereafter the enquiries revealed that the Arbitrator was closely connected with the respondents. This averment to my mind is patently false. The petitioners had admittedly filed Arbitration Petition No. 69 of 1991. In that petition they have sought removal of the Arbitrator on the ground that he was biased and was proceeding with the arbitration with a pre-determined mind. This petition as noticed above was rejected on 9-12-94, after examining the case on merits. Thus I do not find much substance in the submission of Mr. Kamdar that non-filing of the rejoinder would in any manner hinder his submissions with regard to bias. The other reasons stated for filing the rejoinder are with regard to the points raised in the arguments. Thus I do not find much substance in the submission of Mr. Kamdar that non-filing of the rejoinder would in any manner hinder his submissions with regard to bias. The other reasons stated for filing the rejoinder are with regard to the points raised in the arguments. There again it is to be seen that no rejoinder would be necessary with regard to the submission that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to decide some of the claims. It would also not be necessary to have the benefit of a rejoinder to decide whether or not there was a joint reference of the dispute of arbitration by the parties. There is also no need for an affidavit in rejoinder to support the claim of the petitioners with regard to paragraph 8 of the award which shall be discussed later. There is no requirement for a rejoinder also to elucidate the point that the inspection of the documents had not been made by the petitioners before the award was announced. This is a matter of record. As for the plea that the award would be vitiated on account of non-observance of rules of natural justice, all the relevant facts as enumerated above have already come on the record. As noticed above, it was the bounden duty of the petitioners to plead all the facts which were necessary for establishing their claim in the petition. The purpose of a rejoinder is not to fill in the gaps left by the petitioners in their pleadings, in the petition. In the reply the respondents have not raised any new issues. These issues were in fact before the Arbitrator and the petitioners were well aware of these issues. In the letter dated 11-1-97 the respondents had categorically stated that there are no new facts which have been pleaded by the respondents. The petitioners were well aware of it as the said letter has been attached to the petition as Exhibit-H. In view of the above, I find no justification whatsoever in adjourning the matter to enable Mr. Kamdar to file a rejoinder. 5. On merits, Mr. Kamdar has submitted that the award made by the Arbitrator is wholly without jurisdiction. The petitioners were well aware of it as the said letter has been attached to the petition as Exhibit-H. In view of the above, I find no justification whatsoever in adjourning the matter to enable Mr. Kamdar to file a rejoinder. 5. On merits, Mr. Kamdar has submitted that the award made by the Arbitrator is wholly without jurisdiction. It is submitted that it was categorically pleaded before the Arbitrator in the draft issues suggested that no disputes in respect of counter claims have arisen between the parties which could be referred to arbitration under Clause 37 of the General Conditions of Contract. It was also submitted that the respondents have not fulfilled the mandatory requirements of Clause 37 before referring the counter claims to arbitration. It was further claimed by the petitioners that no disputes pertaining to the counter claims were in existence at the time of appointment of the Arbitrator. Thus it had been categorically submitted that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claims. Mr. Kamdar submits that a perusal of the award would show that these very important issues of jurisdiction which were raised before the Arbitrator had not been decided by the Arbitrator at all. This failure on the part of the Arbitrator goes to the root of the proceeding, as it amounts to misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator. It is further submitted by Mr. Kamdar that undoubtedly the decision given by the Arbitrator is not a final decision with regard to jurisdiction. Final decision is to be taken, according to him, only by the Court under section 33 of the Act. Nevertheless, submits Mr. Kamdar, it is incumbent on the Arbitrator to decide the issue of jurisdiction when the same has been specifically raised before him by either of the parties. In support of this proposition Mr. Kamdar has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Premier Fabricators, Allahabad v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi)1, 1997(4) S.C.C. 319 . It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is para materia to the facts of the case which was decided by the Supreme Court. A perusal of the judgement in Premier Fabricator's case, however, shows that the Supreme Court was concerned with an issue of jurisdiction which had been specifically referred as a question of law to the Arbitrators. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is para materia to the facts of the case which was decided by the Supreme Court. A perusal of the judgement in Premier Fabricator's case, however, shows that the Supreme Court was concerned with an issue of jurisdiction which had been specifically referred as a question of law to the Arbitrators. The Arbitrators therein found that "claims No. 2 to 5" were referable under Clause 78 of the Contract. They however disagreed on the amount to be awarded under these claims. Thus they appointed an umpire. A non-speaking Award was made by the Umpire. On application the award was made rule of Court and the petition under section 33 of the Act was dismissed. The respondents went in appeal to High Court. Before the Division Bench of the High Court, again, there was a difference of opinion. Both the Judges agreed that the arbitrability of the claim had been referred to the Arbitrators. They also agreed that the findings of the Arbitrators on this issue was correct. Thereafter one of the Judges held that only part of the dispute with regard to the amount of Rs. 80,000/- awarded was referred to the Umpire. The other Judge held that Umpire had to decide the whole dispute as the same could not be split up, nor could it be said that the Award given by the Arbitrators was an interim award. Thus the matter was referred to a third Judge, who held that only part of the dispute had been referred. In view of the above the appeal was allowed and the award was set aside. As noticed earlier, a perusal of the said judgement would show that therein the point of jurisdiction had been specifically referred to the Arbitrators as "Whether claims referred to at Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Annexure A are or are not referable to arbitration in terms of the contract." It was in these circumstances that the Supreme Court stated that : "6. The sole question for consideration therefore, is whether the umpire having indicated the consolidated sum in his non-speaking award, could be deemed to have decided the preliminary issue of arbitrability of claims 2 to 5 ? The sole question for consideration therefore, is whether the umpire having indicated the consolidated sum in his non-speaking award, could be deemed to have decided the preliminary issue of arbitrability of claims 2 to 5 ? We may, at the outset, state that the Constitution Bench in Raipur Development Authority v. Chokhamal Contractors had held that unless the parties expressly agree, the arbitrator is not required to give reasons in support of his award. The Court pointed out the distinction between the private award and the award touching the coffers of the public exchequer and observed that in case the contracts were entered into by and between the Government or instrumentality of the States on the one hand and private party on the other, they should incorporate in the contract that the arbitrator should give reasons in support of the award. In other cases it may not be incumbent upon the arbitrator to give reasons in the award. In the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 repealing the 1940 Act, it is indicated in section 31(3) that the arbitral award shall state reasons upon which it is based unless the parties agree that no reasons have to be given or the award is an arbitral award on agreed terms under section 30 thereof. In other words, under the 1996 Act, it is incumbent upon the arbitrator to give reasons in support of the award unless the parties otherwise agree or give consent to the terms under section 30." In para 8 the Supreme Court notices the judgement in the case of (Tarapore and Co. v. Cochin Shipyard Ltd.)2, 1984(2) S.C.C. 680 . Reference is made to observations made at pages 691-693 of the said judgement, which are as follows: "What is the effect of referring the specific question of law to arbitration without prejudice to one's right to contend to the contrary will be presently examined....If this issue specifically raises a question as to jurisdiction of the arbitrator to arbitrate upon the dispute set out in Point No. 2, it appears to have been specifically referred to the arbitrator for his decision. Parties, therefore, agreed to submit the specific question even with regard to the scope, ambit, width and the construction of the arbitration clause so as to define its parameters and contours with a view to ascertaining whether the claim advanced by the appellant and disputed by the respondent would be covered by the arbitration clause. Whether upon its true construction the arbitration clause would include within its compass the dispute thus raised between the parties was specifically put in issue because parties were at variance about it........The arbitrator was thus required and called upon first to decide whether, the dispute is arbitrable as falling within the width and ambit of the arbitration agreement. If the answer is in the affirmative, then alone the second point need by examined. If the answer to the first point of reference is in the negative in that if the arbitrators were of the opinion that the dispute is not arbitrable as it would not fall within the scope, width and ambit of the arbitration agreement, it would not be necessary for him to determine whether the appellant was entitled to recover anything by way of compensation. This aspect is being analysed in depth to point out that the parties specifically referred the question of construction of arbitration agreement, its width, ambit and parameters vis-a-vis the dispute raised so as to decide whether the dispute would fall within the purview of the arbitration agreement, in other words the jurisdiction of the arbitrator." Thereafter the Supreme Court notices the judgement in the case of (U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure (P) Ltd.)3, 1996(2) S.C.C. 667 and reference is made to paragraphs 13 and 15 which are extracted as follows: "The arbitrability of a claim depends on the construction of the clause in the contract. The finding of the arbitrator/arbitrators on arbitrability of the claim is not conclusive as under section 33; ultimately it is the Court that decides the controversy. It being a jurisdictional issue, the arbitrator/arbitrators cannot clothe themselves with jurisdiction to conclusively decide the issue." "The clear settled law thus is that the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement shall be decided by the Court alone. Arbitrators, therefore, have no power or jurisdiction to decide or adjudicate conclusively by themselves the question since it is the very foundation on which the arbitrators proceed to adjudicate the disputes. Arbitrators, therefore, have no power or jurisdiction to decide or adjudicate conclusively by themselves the question since it is the very foundation on which the arbitrators proceed to adjudicate the disputes. Therefore, it is rightly pointed out by Shri Adarsh Kumar Goel, learned Counsel for the appellant, that they had by mistake agreed for reference and that arbitrators could not decide the existence of the arbitration agreement or arbitrability of the disputes without prejudice to their stand that no valid agreement existed. Shri Nariman contended that having agreed to refer the dispute, the appellant had acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators and, therefore, they cannot exercise the right under section 33 of the Act. We find no force in the contention. As seen, the appellant is claiming adjudication under section 33 which the Court alone has jurisdiction and power to decide whether any valid agreement is existing between the parties. Mere acceptance or acquiescing to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators for adjudication of the disputes as to the existence of the arbitration agreement or arbitrability of the dispute does not disentitle the appellant to have the remedy under section 33 through the Court. In our considered view the remedy under section 33 is the only right royal way for deciding the controversy." It can be seen that paragraph 15 of the judgement in U.P. Rajkiya Nirman (supra) it is observed by the Supreme Court" that the clear settled law thus is that the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement shall be decided by the Court alone. Arbitrators, therefore, have no power or jurisdiction to decide or adjudicate conclusively by themselves the question since it is the very foundation on which the arbitrators proceed to adjudicate the disputes". In that case it was argued by the Counsel for the appellant therein that they had in fact by mistake agreed for reference and that Arbitrators could not decide the existence of the arbitration agreement or arbitrability of the disputes. This submission was accepted and it was held that the Arbitrators had no jurisdiction to decide on the point of arbitrability. At the same time the contention that having agreed to refer the dispute, the appellant had acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators and, therefore, they cannot exercise the right under section 33 of the Act, was rejected. This submission was accepted and it was held that the Arbitrators had no jurisdiction to decide on the point of arbitrability. At the same time the contention that having agreed to refer the dispute, the appellant had acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators and, therefore, they cannot exercise the right under section 33 of the Act, was rejected. Thereafter the Supreme Court referred to the judgement in the case of (Union of India v. G.S. Atwal Co.)4, reported in 1996(3) S.C.C. 568 , hereinafter referred to as "the G.S. Atwal's case". In that case it had been held that to constitute an arbitration agreement there must be an agreement, that is to say, the parties must be ad idem. The arbitrability of a claim depends on the dispute between the parties and the reference to arbitration. On appointment he enters upon the disputes for adjudication. After analysing the law on the point, the Supreme Court discusses the merits of the case as follows: "19. In view of the admitted position that the umpire in the present case has not considered the arbitrability of Items 2 to 5 of the claims in the non-speaking award, it cannot be construed that by implication he had considered the arbitrability of the claims. The preliminary question raised by the parties was as to the arbitrability of Items 2 to 5 of the claims and whether they are within the scope of the contract. Before proceeding to adjudicate claims 2 to 5 on merits, the umpire was required to give his finding on the issue of arbitrability of claims 2 to 5 and reasons in support thereof. The third learned Judge (L.M. Sharma, J., as he then was) and Sinha, J., have rightly held that the umpire cannot conclusively decide for himself in a non-speaking award of the arbitrability of the claims and that, therefore, the umpire was required to decide as a preliminary issue of the arbitrability of Claims 2 to 5. We agree with the learned Judges on that finding that the award is illegal." In view of the aforesaid observations I do not find much substance in the submission of Mr. Kamdar that the jurisdiction can be conferred on an Arbitrator by one of the parties without the consent of the other to adjudicate upon the issue of jurisdiction as a specified question of law. Kamdar that the jurisdiction can be conferred on an Arbitrator by one of the parties without the consent of the other to adjudicate upon the issue of jurisdiction as a specified question of law. The observations extracted above relate to the manner in which the Arbitrator(s) is to proceed after the specific "question of arbitrability" has been referred by mutual consent of the parties. In the present case the issue of jurisdiction has been raised by the petitioners, only in the "suggested draft issues". It cannot be seen from the record that these were accepted as final either by the Arbitrator or by the respondents. In this very judgement there is a dissent by Punchi, J., (as the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India then was). After discussing the whole issue in paragraph 29 it was observed as follows: "As is evident, no abstract question of law or of legal import has arisen herein. It is from the facts and circumstances of the case that one would have to draw and record inferences. There are four reasons detailed hereafter which call to infer that (i) the umpire was alive to his duties as such, knowing fully well that he was not a superior between the two arbitrators, but their sole substitute assigned their duties; (ii) the umpire did not consider the decision of the joint arbitrators dated 6-2-1973 holding that claims under items 2 to 5 were referable to arbitration, as binding on him as if in the nature of an interim award, nor was it treated as such by the arbitrators by delivery and dispatch to the parties concerned; (iii) that since the said order was part of the proceedings recorded by the joint arbitrators, the umpire on receiving the matter is presumed to have gone through the terms of the contract and the arbitration proceedings; and (iv) it is also implied that the umpire as a substitute of the arbitrators must be presumed to have known that before he entered upon reference to decide Items 2 to 5 on their merits he would have to decide whether those items were arbitrable but the same need not have been in express terms. To hold it otherwise would be to negate his independence. (emphasis supplied). To hold it otherwise would be to negate his independence. (emphasis supplied). It may be true that the joint decision dated 6-2-1973 of the arbitrators regarding referability of those items might have been of some support to his view. Yet it cannot be presumed that he considered himself bound by those orders, absolving him of the duty from going into the question. It would thus in the circumstances be seen that obligating the umpire to make a speaking award in so far as the question of referability is concerned lest it vitiates his non-speaking award on merit goes to the very root of the independence of the arbitrator. This is impermissible in law and against the spirit of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The award of the umpire, as is plain is a non-speaking award in entirety. He has precluded it with the recorded awareness that differences between the parties had arisen and the matter stood referred to arbitration in pursuance of the contract in writing dated 25-5-1971. He is then presumed to have read the terms of the contract, the terms of reference and scope of Items 2 to 5 of the claim. He is presumed to have examined whether those claims were referable to arbitration in terms of the contract. He is further presumed to have read the respective files of the two arbitrators and to have heard both parties at length screening all the documents submitted, to come to the base finding that Items 2 to 5 were referable. All the five items were thus arbitrable resulting in the award for a sum of Rs. 80,000 in favour of the contractor. The award must therefore be upheld for the afore-reasons holding that there is no error apparent on the face of the record which would justify its vitiation." (emphasis supplied). These observations clearly indicate that in the case of a non-speaking award, it is to be presumed that the Arbitrator (in this case the umpire) has applied his mind to all the issues raised, including arbitrability. Mr. Kamdar thereafter relies on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of (Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Bridge Tunnel Construction and others)5, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1376. Mr. Kamdar relies on a number of paragraphs in that judgement being paragraphs 26, 29, 31, 34 and 36. Mr. Kamdar thereafter relies on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of (Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Bridge Tunnel Construction and others)5, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1376. Mr. Kamdar relies on a number of paragraphs in that judgement being paragraphs 26, 29, 31, 34 and 36. A perusal of the said paragraphs of the judgement shows that it is quite categorically held that the question of decision by implication does not arise since the jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merits hinges upon his jurisdiction to decide the arbitrability of the dispute. These observations relied on by Mr. Kamdar, in my view, do not support the case of the petitioner. The observations made earlier by the Supreme Court in the very same paragraph leave no manner of doubt that the disputes has to be raised by the "parties" and not by "either of the parties". Paragraph 26 is as follows:--- "It would thus be clear that the arbitrator cannot clothe himself conclusively with the jurisdiction to decide or omit to decide the arbitrability of a particular item or the claim made by the parties. When a specific reference has been made to the arbitrator and the parties raise the dispute of arbitrability, with the leave of the Court/by a direction of the Court in a proceeding under section 33, he is to decide the arbitrability of the dispute and make a decision while giving reasons in support thereof." (Emphasis supplied). The aforesaid observations clearly show that the Supreme Court has held that the reference had to be made by both the parties. In paragraphs 29 and 31 the Supreme Court has considered and approved the decisions given in the earlier cases. The conclusions are given in paragraphs 34 and 36. In paragraph 34 it is held that under the new Act there is a mandate that the award should state the reasons upon which it is based. In paragraph 36 of the judgement it has been categorically held that in the case of non-speaking award, it is not open to the Court to go into the merits. Only in a speaking award the Court can look into the reasoning in the award and correct wrong proposition of law or error of law. Paragraph 36 of the judgement is reproduced hereunder. "36. Only in a speaking award the Court can look into the reasoning in the award and correct wrong proposition of law or error of law. Paragraph 36 of the judgement is reproduced hereunder. "36. It is well settled that in the matter of challenge to the award there are two distinct and different grounds viz., that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and that the arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction. In the latter case, the Court can look into arbitration agreement but under the former it cannot do so unless the agreement was incorporated or cited in the award of evidence was made part of the agreement. In the case of jurisdictional error, there is no embargo on the power of the Court to admit the contract into evidence and to consider whether or not the umpire had exceeded the jurisdiction because the nature of the dispute is something which has to be determined, outside the award, whatever might be said about it in the award or by the arbitrator. In the case of non-speaking award, it is not open to the Court to go into the merits. Only in a speaking award the Court can look into the reasoning in the award and correct wrong proposition of law or error of law. It is not open to the Court to probe the mental process of the arbitrator and speculate, when no reasons have been given by the arbitrator, as to what impelled the arbitrator to arrive at his conclusion. (emphasis supplied) But in the later case the Court, with reference to the terms of the contract/arbitration agreement, would consider whether or not the arbitrator/umpire has exceeded his jurisdiction in awarding or refusing to award the sum of money awarded or omitted a consolidated lumpsum." In paragraph 37, the Supreme Court has again approved the ratio given in the earlier case of G.S. Atwal. 6. After Mr. Tulzapurkar had concluded the arguments, Mr. Kamdar had relied on a number of other decisions on the same proposition of law. These decisions may as well be noticed at this stage only to completely deal with all the submissions made by Mr. Kamdar. 7. The next authority cited by Mr. Kamdar is reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1156 (Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Company and another)6. Counsel has made specific reference to paragraphs 25 and 26. These decisions may as well be noticed at this stage only to completely deal with all the submissions made by Mr. Kamdar. 7. The next authority cited by Mr. Kamdar is reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1156 (Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Company and another)6. Counsel has made specific reference to paragraphs 25 and 26. A perusal of these two paragraphs shows that the Supreme Court had discussed almost all the earlier authorities and summed up the position of law in paragraph 25 which is as under : "25. Four propositions emerge very clearly from the authorities discussed above: 1. Whether a given dispute inclusive of the arbitrator's jurisdiction comes within the scope or purview of an arbitration clause or not primarily depends upon the terms of the clause itself; it is a question of what the parties intend to provide and what language they employ. 2. Expressions such as "arising out of" or "in respect of" or "in connection with" or "in relation to" or "in consequence of" or "concerning" or "relating to" the contract are of the widest amplitude and content and include even questions as to the existence, validity and effect (scope) of the arbitration agreement. 3. Ordinarily as a rule an arbitrator cannot clothe himself with power to decide the questions of his own jurisdiction (and it will be for the Court to decide those questions) but there is nothing to prevent the parties from investing him with power to decide those questions, as for instance, by a collateral or separate agreement which will be effective and operative. (emphasis supplied). 4. (emphasis supplied). 4. If, however, the arbitration clause, so widely worded as to include within its scope questions of its existence, validity and effect (scope) is contained in the underlying commercial contract then decided cases have made a distinction between questions as to the existence and/or validity of the agreement on the one hand and its effect (scope) on the other and have held that in the case of former those questions cannot be decided by the arbitrator as by sheer logic the arbitration Clause must fall along with underlying commercial contract which is either non-existent or illegal while in the case of the latter it will ordinarily be for the arbitrator to decide the effect or scope of the arbitration agreement, i.e. to decide the issue of arbitrability of the claims preferred before him." In paragraph 26 it is held that since the parties to the underlying commercial contract had used the expressions "arising out of" or "related to this contract" in the arbitration clause contained in the contract there can be no doubt that the parties clearly intended to refer the issue pertaining to the effect (scope) of the arbitration agreement to the Court of Arbitration of I.C.C. In other words, the issue about arbitrability of the three claims under reference has been referred. The Supreme Court in that case was construing the arbitration clause which was wholly different in scope than the present arbitration clause which is as under : "37. Arbitration. The Employer and the Contractor agree that should any dispute or difference of opinion arise between them concerning any matters connecting with the works, either during the progress of the works or after its completion or the termination or abandonment of the contract, excepting as to the matters in which the opinion of the Consultant is reserved and is taken as final under the conditions of the contract either party shall give notice to the other of such dispute or difference and the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a person nominated by the Consultant and his award shall be taken as final and binding to both the parties to this agreement and without appeal." The words specifically noticed by the Supreme Court in proposition 2 given in paragraph 26 "arising out of" or "related to this contract" are not to be found in the present clause. Clause 37 is restricted on the points on which reference to the arbitration can be made with regard to the work and not the whole of the "contract". By virtue of this clause, it is agreed that should any dispute or difference of opinion arise between the parties concerning any matters connecting with the works, either during the progress of the works or after its completion or the termination or abandonment of the contract shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a person nominated by the Consultant. These are the only matters which can be referred to arbitration. Thus, in my view it cannot be held that merely by construction of Clause 37, the point if arbitrability has been referred by implication or otherwise. If anything, the fact of the present case are squarely covered by proposition 3. Proposition 2 would not be applicable in the facts of this case. 8. Apart from the aforesaid reason it has to be seen that the aforesaid judgement has been given by a Bench of two Judges. There is an earlier judgement of a larger Bench (Three Judges) of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1955 S.C. page 468 (Thawardas Pherumal and another v. Union of India)7, in which the law had been clearly laid down on the present issue. After analysing the law as it existed at various stages the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 11 with reference to the remission of the Award under section 16(1)(c) of the Act which reads as under. "In India this question is governed by section 16(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act of 1940 which empowers a Court to remit an award for reconsideration "Where an objection to the legality of the award is apparent upon the face of it." This covers cases in which an error of law appears on the face of the award. But in determining what such an error is, a distinction must be drawn between cases in which a question of law is specifically referred and those in which a decision on a question of law is incidentally material (however necessary) in order to decide the question actually referred. But in determining what such an error is, a distinction must be drawn between cases in which a question of law is specifically referred and those in which a decision on a question of law is incidentally material (however necessary) in order to decide the question actually referred. (emphasis supplied) If a question of law is specifically referred and it is evident that the parties desire to have a decision from the arbitrator about that, rather than one from the courts, then the courts will not interfere, though even there, there is authority for the view that the courts will interfere if it is apparent that the arbitrator has acted illegally in reaching his decision, that is to say, if he has decided on inadmissible evidence or on principles of construction that the law does not countenance or something of that nature. See the speech of Viscount Cave in (Kelantang Government v. Duff Development Co. Ltd.)8, 1923 A.C. 395 at p. 409(A). But that is not a matter which arises in this case." It is held that the law about the proposition is the same here in India as it is in ENGLAND. Thereafter in paragraph 12 after referring to the decisions given by the House of Lords and the Privy Council it has been held: "An arbitrator is not a conciliator and cannot ignore the law or misapply it in order to what he thinks is just and reasonable. He is a tribunal selected by the parties to decide their disputes according to law and so is bound to follow and apply the law, and if he does not, he can be set right by the Courts provided his error appears on the face of the award. The single exception to this is when the parties choose specifically to refer a question of law as a separate and distinct matter." It was also argued in the case that "if you have to recourse to the contract to establish your case, then the dispute must fall within the arbitration clause. This was held to be undeniable. It was however observed that it is not enough that the dispute should fall within the clause. This was held to be undeniable. It was however observed that it is not enough that the dispute should fall within the clause. It is also necessary that the parties should define what the dispute is and agree to refer the dispute so set out and defined to arbitration, or, if they do not, that the Court should compel them to do so. Thereafter it is observed as follows. "If, thereafter, no specific question of law is referred either by agreement or by compulsion the decision of the arbitrator on that is not final however much it may be within his jurisdiction and indeed essential for him to decide the question incidentally. (emphasis supplied) Lord Russell of Killowen and Lord Wright were both in the earlier case, 1933 A.C. 592 (B), as well as in Heyman's case (H), and they would have pointed to any distinction had there been a likelihood of conflict; but in fact there is none and we do not read Fazal Ali J.'s judgement as a decision to the contrary." In paragraph 14 it is observed as follows : "We have next to see whether the arbitrator was specifically asked to construe Clause 6 of the contract or any part of the contract, or whether any question of law was specifically referred. We stress the word "specifically" because parties who make a reference to arbitration have the right to insist that the tribunal of their choice shall decide their dispute according to law, so before the right can be denied to them in any particular matter the Court must be very sure that both sides wanted the decision of the arbitrator on a point of law rather than that of the Courts and that they wanted his decision on that point to be final" (emphasis supplied). Even otherwise I am of the view that in the subsequent judgements the Supreme Court has not taken a view which is different from the observations reproduced above. The law laid down by the larger Bench is binding on this Court. Mr. Kamdar had thereafter submitted that the scope of arbitrability of claim is within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to decide. Therefore, reference can be made by implication also. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in paras 25 and 26 in the case of Renusagar, Mr. Mr. Kamdar had thereafter submitted that the scope of arbitrability of claim is within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to decide. Therefore, reference can be made by implication also. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in paras 25 and 26 in the case of Renusagar, Mr. Kamdar submits that the scope of arbitrability of a claim is within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to decide. Thus there can be a reference by implication. In the aforesaid case the Supreme Court had categorically held that the dispute was impliedly referred to the Arbitrator by construing the arbitration clause. The aforesaid submission has, however, been noticed and rejected by the majority decision in Premier Fabricators. Save as stated in proposition 2 in Renusagar's case, there cannot be reference by implication or construction of the contract. The parties must agree to make specific reference of a question of jurisdiction/arbitrability. Mr. Kamdar then cited A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 232 (Associated Engineering Company v. Govt. of A.P.)9, and reference has been made to paragraphs 23 and 29. In the aforesaid case it is held that where it is apparent not by construction of the contract but by merely looking at the contract that the umpire travelled outside the permissible territory, then such an error goes to the root of his jurisdiction. This proposition of law is well settled. The respondents are not even claiming to challenge the aforesaid proposition of law. 9. Mr. Kamdar thereafter stated that the Award suffers from non-application of mind. This is also stated to amount to a misconduct. A pointed reference has been made to paragraph 8 of the Award. The said paragraph is reproduced hereunder. "8. Accordingly, I do hereby make and publish my Award on the disputes referred to me as aforesaid in the following manner:- (i) The claims made by the Claimants M/s. Hindustan Construction Corporation including the supplementary claims against the respondents, counter claims made by the respondents, Mazagon Dock Limited against the Claimants, M/s. Hindustan Construction Corporation are allowed only to the extent as stated hereinbelow and the rest of the counter claims are hereby rejected. Brief Description Amount awarded (Rs) a) Recovery against liquidated damages 2,34,900.00 b) Recovery against Insurance covers. 75,398.00 c) Recovery against use of untested steel 9,963.00 d) Additional cost of rolling shutters. Brief Description Amount awarded (Rs) a) Recovery against liquidated damages 2,34,900.00 b) Recovery against Insurance covers. 75,398.00 c) Recovery against use of untested steel 9,963.00 d) Additional cost of rolling shutters. 1,84,010.00 e) Recovery towards balance work 25,816.00 f) Cost of fabrication drawings 7,730.00 g) Cost of arbitration 20,000.00 ----------------- Total = 5,57,817.00 (ii) The Claimants shall pay to the respondent the above mentioned award amount of Rs. 5,57,817.00 within 45 days from the date of this Award, failing which they shall pay to the respondents, in addition, simple interest @ 21% p.a. from the date of award till date of payment or a decree of an appropriate Court whichever is earlier." 10. Mr. Kamdar submits that what is stated in paragraph 8(i) does not tally with what has been awarded in the tabulation under the heading "Brief Description". It is submitted that a perusal of the description would show that nothing has been awarded to the claimants although it is stated that the claims made by the claimants are allowed only to the extent as stated hereinabove. A bare perusal of the said paragraph of the Award would show that the submission of Mr. Kamdar is based on a misreading of the said paragraph. In this paragraph it is stated that the claims made by the claimants (petitioners) including the supplementary claims and the counter claims made by the respondents are allowed only to the extent as stated hereinabove. It is clarified that the rest of the counter claims are also rejected. A perusal of the amounts awarded in the brief description of the award shows that a sum of Rs. 2,34,900/- has been awarded to the respondents by way of liquidated damages. According to Mr. Kamdar, this amounts to allowing the same amount of damages twice. This submission of Kamdar is not borne out from the award. A perusal of the draft issues submitted by the petitioners shows that specific questions were raised which are as follows: "2. Do the Claimants prove that they are entitled to refund of the encashed amount of the Bank Guarantee for Rs. 2,34,900/- or any other amount? 3. Do the Claimants prove that they are entitled to refund of the security deposit amount of Rs. 2,34,900/- or any other amount from the respondents? 4. Do the Claimants prove that they are entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,34,900/- or any other amount? 3. Do the Claimants prove that they are entitled to refund of the security deposit amount of Rs. 2,34,900/- or any other amount from the respondents? 4. Do the Claimants prove that they are entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,34,900/- or any other amount towards damages for wrongful termination of the contract by the respondents? 16. Do the Claimants prove that they are entitled to release of Rs. 2,34,900/- or any other amount deducted by the respondents towards alleged provisional liquidated damages? (C)5. Do the respondents prove that they are entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,34,900/- or any other amount towards liquidated damages ?" A perusal of the aforesaid questions posed clearly show that even the petitioners had accepted that the encashment of the Bank Guarantee in the sum of Rs. 2,34,900/- was independent of the claim of liquidated damages in the same amount. The respondents whilst summarising their claim in Exhibit-C have clearly claimed that a credit in the sum of Rs. 2,34,000/- has been given on account of the Bank Guarantee. The aforesaid amount has been deducted from the claim of Rs. 7,38,032.23. They had also claimed a separate amount of Rs. 2,34,900/- by way of liquidated damages. In support of the aforesaid submission the Counsel Mr. Kamdar has relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court reported in 1994(4) S.C.C. 665 (Union of India v. Jain Associates and another)10. In paragraph 6 of the said judgement it is observed that claim Nos. 11 and 12 were with regard to the same item i.e. laches and negligence. The Umpire in that case had awarded a sum of Rs. 4,11,400/ -- with regard to claim No. 11 and a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- with regard to claim No. 12. In view of the aforesaid it was observed" A perusal of both the claims would show that Claim 11 is founded on loss of profits and Claim 12 is founded for damages, based upon delay, laches and negligence alleged against the appellant, resulting in breach of the contract. In other words the Contractor claimed compensation for breach of contract arising under section 73 of the Contract Act." It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that the same type of damages have been given twice over.