Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. Respondent, Nanu Ram Goyal, Engineer Contractor, was given a work for construction of 100 bedded hospital at Sonepat on 19th November, 1981. The work was to be completed within 24 months i.e. by 18th November, 1983 but the work was not completed-even upto 1986. As per the contractor, the delay in completion of the work occurred due to fault of the petitioners herein as they failed to fulfil the salient obligations imposed upon them under the contract. According to the petitioners, the delay occurred on account of the fault on the part of the contractor, who sought extension of time in completion of the work. 2. Since disputes arose between the parties, the Superintending Engineer, Karnal, was appointed as an Arbitrator on 29th January, 1988, the said Arbitrator entered upon the reference but the respondent herein filed a petition under Sections 8, 11, 14 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the Civil Court at Chandigarh to revoke the authority of the Arbitrator. For the reasons mentioned in the detailed order, the learned Trial Court allowed such application on January 5, 1990. The Arbitrator was removed and fresh appointment of the Arbitrator was ordered. A revision petition against the said order bearing Civil Revision No. 845 of 1990 was preferred by the petitioners herein which came up for hearing before this Court on 14th November, 1990. The revision was dismissed but at the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners to appoint an independent Arbitrator, Justice R.N. Mittal, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as an Arbitrator. 3. The learned Arbitrator has given the Award on 10th April, 1992. The said award was filed before this Court. The matter was taken up on 27th May, 1992, when notice was ordered to be issued to the learned Counsel for the parties alongwith a copy of the award for July 14, 1992. On July 14, 1992, the matter was adjourned to July 28, 1992 on which date, the petitioners filed Objections dated June 19, 1992 against the award of the Arbitrator. 4. The petitioners filed the Objections dated June 19, 1992 against the award of the Arbitrator. The reply dated July 17, 1992 was filed by the contractor on July 28, 1992 itself. The petitioners also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was registered as CM. 4. The petitioners filed the Objections dated June 19, 1992 against the award of the Arbitrator. The reply dated July 17, 1992 was filed by the contractor on July 28, 1992 itself. The petitioners also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was registered as CM. No. 7665-CH of 1992 to seek condonation of delay in filing of the objections on the ground that the petitioners have not received any notice alongwith award and therefore, the limitation cannot be said to have started. It was pointed out that the objections were prepared to the award and delivered in the office of the Advocate General, Haryana on June 19, 1992 but since no notice was received, the same could not be filed. On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed on January 5, 1993: 1. Whether the objections are barred by time? OPR 2. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the objections raised in the objection petition? OPO. 3. Relief. 5. The objections raised by the petitioners are to the effect that the Arbitrator failed to give award in respect of each item of claims, additional claims and counter claims and thus, the petitioners have been seriously prejudiced on this account and incapacitated to raise detailed objections in respect of the award rendered by the learned Arbitrator. It has also been pointed out that there are few prohibitory clauses in the relevant agreement by which jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator is barred to entertain the claims of the contractor but in lump sum award announced by the learned Arbitrator, the petitioners do not know whether or not the Arbitrator has jurisdiction in respect of those claims which he could not have entertained otherwise. 6. In pursuance of the objections filed, the objectors have produced OW-1, Suraj Bhan Sharma, Junior Engineer, OW-2, Karan Singh Saharan, SDO, OW-3 Ved Pal, Executive Engineer, and Ms. Ritu Bahri has appeared as OW-4. To rebut the said evidence, the contractor has appeared as his own witness as RW-1. Issue No. 1: 7. Keeping in view the fact that the award was filed before this Court on May 27, 1992, the notice, thereof would be deemed to be received by the petitioners on July 14, 1992 when the petitioners put in appearance in pursuance of the Order dated May 27, 1992. Issue No. 1: 7. Keeping in view the fact that the award was filed before this Court on May 27, 1992, the notice, thereof would be deemed to be received by the petitioners on July 14, 1992 when the petitioners put in appearance in pursuance of the Order dated May 27, 1992. Since objections have been filed on July 28, 1992, therefore, the same are within the period of limitation. Issue No. 2: 8. Alter going through the objections raised and the statements of the witnesses, I do not find any merit in the objections raised by the State. The only ground raised and argued is that in the absence of award in respect of each claim, the award has prejudiced the claim of the petitioners. The Arbitrator has announced supplementary award dated March 31, 1994 in terms of the order dated 13.1.1994 as well. No objections were filed against the aforesaid award dated March 31, 1994. The learned Arbitrator has given the details of each of the claim, counter claim of additional claim. It is well established that an Arbitrator is a master of law (sic) award awarding Rs. 18,04,300/- in favour of the contractor inclusive of interest upto April 10, 1992. The Arbitrator was not required to give any reason is respect of each claim though reasons have been given subsequently. The. learned Counsel for the petitioners could not point out any clause in the agreement which contemplates the reasons in support of the award to be recorded. 9. In the absence of such stipulation in the agreement, an obligation on the part of I the Arbitrator to give reasons cannot be contemplated. The petitioners have failed to prove any act of misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator. Relief: 10. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the objections, the same are dismissed. The award dated April 10, 1997 as clarified on March 31, 1994 is made Rule of Court with no order as to costs.