MUKULMUDGAL,j. (ORAL) ( 1 ) THERE is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in Court today when thematter was called out. ( 2 ) THIS is a petition on behalf of the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration andconciliation Act, 1996 praying for setting aside the impugned Award dated 3rdnovember, 1997 which is passed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of respondentno. 1 and against the petitioner. The Arbitrator was appointed pursuant to Clause 23of the Agreement dated 26. 7. 95 between the petitioner and the respondents. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that no reasons have been given in the impugned Award dated3. 11. 1997. ( 4 ) IN fact the award reads as follows: "i, award a sum of Rs. 7,13,183. 32 (Rs. Seven lakhs thirteen thousand onehundred Eighty three and thirty two paise only) as price of the goods and asum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 (Rs. One lakh only) as damages to M/s. Chelsaproducts against M/s. Frontline Enterprises with future interest at the rate of18% per annum from the date this award and till the full and final payment ofthe above amount and also the cost of Rs. 4,000. 00 (Rupees four thousandonly) to be shared equally by the parties. " ( 5 ) THE Section 31 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reads as follows: "the arbitral award shall state the reasons upon which it is based, unless - (a) the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given, or (b) the award is an arbitral award on agreed terms under Section 30. " ( 6 ) IT is not disputed that there was no agreement between the parties that noreasons for the award was to be given or that the award is on agreed terms undersection 33 of the Act. The arbitration clause No. 23 in the Agreement dated 2 6/07/1995 reads as follows: "that in the event of any dispute arising out of and in the course of thebusiness under the present agreement, It shall be settled by an arbitratorappointed by agreement at Delhi only. Any other dispute shall be subject tothe jurisdiction of courts at Delhi only. " ( 7 ) THERE is no other clause in the agreement dated 26/07/1995 which stipulatesa waiver of reasons in support of the award. Any other dispute shall be subject tothe jurisdiction of courts at Delhi only. " ( 7 ) THERE is no other clause in the agreement dated 26/07/1995 which stipulatesa waiver of reasons in support of the award. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon ajudgment of the Hon blesupreme Court in T. N. Electricity Board s. Bridge Tunnel Construction and Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 121 to contend that after coming into force of the Arbitration andconciliation Act, 1996 reasons are required to be given in support of the award. Thepresent case is governed by the Act of 1996. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition is allowed and the impugned Award dated 3/11/1997 is hereby set aside. ( 10 ) IN view of the above findings, the petition stands disposed of.