M. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is directedagainst the judgment and order dated 8/08/1997 whereby the Additionaldistrict Judge dismissed the objections of the appellants and made the award inquestion a rule of the court. In respect of the disputes arising between the parties,namely, the appellants and the respondent No. 1, the same were referred to thenamed arbitrator, who entered upon the reference on 27/09/1989 andpassed his award on 15/12/1989. The aforesaid award was filed in thecourt of the Additional District Judge, as against which objections were filed by theappellants herein. The aforesaid objections were taken up for consideration and inthe light of the records of the case, the Additional District Judge dismissed theobjections and made the award a rule of the court. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants whose only pleawas that reference to the arbitrator by the respondent No. 1 was wholly unilateralwithout any knowledge and intimation to the appellants and, therefore, the saidreference was bad in law. In order to appreciate the contention of the counselappearing for the appellants, I have considered the records and also have perusedthe contents of the award as also the impugned order passed by the Additionaldistrict Judge. ( 3 ) REFERENCE was made to Sh. B. R. Tandon, Advocate in terms of the arbitrationclause between the parties as appearing from agreement dated 18. 5. 1986. Ittranspires therefrom that Sh. B. R. Tandon, Advocate is a named arbitrator in theagreement itself wherein it stipulated that in case there is any dispute between theparties, a reference is to be made to the said named arbitrator. Thus, reference of thedisputes arising between the parties was made to the named arbitrator in terms ofthe arbitration clause between the parties. If the arbitration agreement names theperson to whom the reference is to be made in case of disputes between the parties,reference can be made to said arbitrator by any of the parties and in the event of sucha reference, the provisions of Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act are notattracted. Besides, on perusal of the records, I find that although a plea of theaforesaid nature was raised in the reply filed, no such plea was argued before thearbitrator as would be apparent from a reading of the contents of paragraph 4 of theimpugned order. Besides, on perusal of the records, I find that although a plea of theaforesaid nature was raised in the reply filed, no such plea was argued before thearbitrator as would be apparent from a reading of the contents of paragraph 4 of theimpugned order. The only submission of the counsel appearing for the appellantswas that the arbitrator has misconducted himself in the proceedings which is clearfrom the records. The nature of misconducts were also argued before the Additionaldistrict Judge, who on consideration of the same found that all the aforesaid objectionshad no merit at all. In the memorandum of appeal filed in this court also no such pleawas raised by the appellants. Thus, it is apparent that such a plea has been raised bythe appellants for the first time at the time of arguments of the present appeal. ( 4 ) COUNSEL also relied upon the decision of this Court in National Small Industriescorpn. Vs. National Metal reported in 1981 RLR 337 . A perusal of the saiddecision would indicate that the facts of the two cases are distinguishable. In theaforesaid reported decision the arbitration clause thereof is quoted in paragraphno. 2. The arbitrator was not a named arbitrator and the disputes were to be referredto arbitration. In view of the aforesaid facts this court held that if a single arbitrator is tobe appointed and the opponent does not concur, then party giving notice cannotunilaterally refer but must move Court under Section 8 and cannot seek assistance ofsection 9 of the Arbitration Act. The said decision, therefore, is of no assistance tothe plea raised herein. ( 5 ) REFERENCE was also made to the decision of this court in Avn Tubes Ltd. Vs. Bharatia Cutler Hammer Ltd. reported in 1992 RLR (DB) 89. I have considered thefacts of the said case also. On consideration of the facts of the said case it isapparent that the said case is also distinguishable on the facts. In the said case, onlyone party was given the right to go in for arbitration and the court held that the saidclause is void. No such plea is also. raised in the present case that the arbitrationclause is void in any manner and, therefore, the said decision has no application tothe facts and circumstances of the present case. In the said case, onlyone party was given the right to go in for arbitration and the court held that the saidclause is void. No such plea is also. raised in the present case that the arbitrationclause is void in any manner and, therefore, the said decision has no application tothe facts and circumstances of the present case. Here is a case where arbitrationclause was incorporated in the agreement in terms of which all disputes arisingbetween the parties were to be referred to the sole arbitration of the named arbitrator. Therefore) when disputes have arisen between the parties, one party to the agreementhas taken resort to the arbitration clause in the agreement and referred the disputesto the named arbitrator on the basis of which the arbitration proceeding continuedand the award came to be passed and published. ( 6 ) THE only ground that was raised before the trial court was that the arbitrator hasmisconducted himself in conducting the proceedings which plea was found to beunfounded. In my considered opinion, there is no merit in this appeal. The appealstands dismissed but without any costs.