JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. :- Since both these OMPs(M) arise out of the same award and raise similar questions of law and facts, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The parties entered into a contract i.e. agreement No.7 of 1992-93 regarding construction of residential complex, below BCC, Shimla, Disputes arose between the parties and as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the disputes were referred for arbitration. The Arbitrator made his award dated 25.8.1999. 3. Being aggrieved, the claimant preferred objection petition under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the Act) against the award which has been registered as OMP(M) No. 36 of 1999. the non-claimant was also not satisfied with the award, therefore, it also preferred objections under Section 34(3) (supra) which has been registered as OMP(M) No.41 of 1999. 4. Each party contested the objections filed by the opposite party and the following identical issues were framed in both the petitions:- 1. Whether the award is opposed to the public policy of India, as alleged? OPO 2. Whether the Arbitrator has not given reasons for making the award, as alleged? OPO 3. Relief. Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence by way of affidavit in support of their rival contentions. 5. Arguments heard. 6. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows: ISSUE NO.2 (In both the cases) : 7. Since the findings on this issue go to the root of the case, therefore, these are taken up first for discussion and decision. 8. Be it stated that it is common case of the parties as per their objections against the award that the arbitrator has not assigned reasons in support of the decision about the claims which has been held respectively against them. 9. Sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the Act reads as follows:- (1) ***** ***** ***** (2) ***** ***** ***** (3) 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. (4) to (8) **** *** ****" 10. It is evident from the aforesaid provisions that the arbitrator is obliged to state reasons upon which his arbitral award is based. There are only two exceptions to the general rule viz. (4) to (8) **** *** ****" 10. It is evident from the aforesaid provisions that the arbitrator is obliged to state reasons upon which his arbitral award is based. There are only two exceptions to the general rule viz. reasons may be dispensed with when the parties have agreed that no reasons are required to be given, or where the arbitral award is on the agreed terms as provided under Section 30 of the Act. This is not the case of the parties that the awards are based on any settlement arrived at as provided under Section 30 of the Act nor it is their case that they have agreed that no reasons are to be given by the arbitrator for his awards. Therefore, the arbitrator was legally bound to state the reasons upon which the awards in question are based. See: Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. M/s. Bridge Tunnel Constitution & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1376. 11. In H.P. Housing Board & Anr. v. M/s. Vijay Construction Works, (OMP(M) No. 11 of 2000 decided on 12.12.2000, this court held as under- "9. The expression "state the reasons upon which it is based" with reference to the context must mean to express die premises to the conclusion. The premises to the conclusion must be traced on the basis of available data. Therefore, the reasons, the basis of an award, must be the outcome of an act of objective thinking and analysis of the available material as per the rules of logic justifying the conclusions. 10. In view of the above meaning of the expression "state the reasons upon which the award is based", the statement of "reasons for award" as attached with the award cannot be treated as "reasons" because the alleged reasons as given are "It is proved....claim not substantiated is revealed it is found," without any reference to the material on the record on the basis of which such conclusions could have been drawn. The award in question, thus, does not state the reasons on which it is based, but only states the unreasoned conclusions and is, therefore, violative of Section 31(3) of the Act." 12. The award in question, thus, does not state the reasons on which it is based, but only states the unreasoned conclusions and is, therefore, violative of Section 31(3) of the Act." 12. In view of the above position in law, the arbitrator is legally bound to assign such reasons in support of the awards which must be the outcome of an act of objective thinking and analysis of the available material as per the rules of logic justifying the conclusions. 13. In the Case on hand, the arbitrator along with his award has attached reasons for the award. The arbitrator while declining most of the claims without any reference to any material whatsoever has simply stated that he claim is not substantiated as such nil amount is awarded or has held that the claimant is entitled for a particular amount and the same is awarded to him but without assigning any reasons, as to why a particular amount has been awarded. Evidently, whatever has been stated as reasons are in fact the conclusions without assigning any reason for arriving at such conclusions. 14. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the arbitrator has not given reasons for making the award as alleged and Issue No.2 in each case is decided in favour of the objectors. ISSUE NO. 1 (In both the cases): 15. Since the award is liable to be set aside in view of the findings given above, therefore, findings on this issue in each case are not required to be recorded. Relief: 16. In view of the findings given on Issue No.2 in each case, the impugned award being without any reasons on which it is based is set aside. Both the OMPs (M) are accordingly disposed of. 17. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the arbitral award in question was made by the arbitrator who was appointed as such in his official capacity and has since retired, therefore, if the parties agree to appoint another arbitrator and is so appointed, it may be left open to so appointed arbitrator to rely on the material already produced by the parties during the arbitral proceedings earlier conducted. In the circumstances, as contemplated by the learned counsel for the parties, there cannot be any objection if with the consent of the parties the new arbitrator may rely on the material whatever might have been brought on record in the earlier arbitral proceedings by the parties. -