JUDGMENT Kailash Gambhir, J. 1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.2.2006 whereby while upholding the impugned award dated 5.5.1993, the learned Single Judge dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under Sections 30 & 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The validity and legality of the award and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge mainly on the ground that the Arbitrators had misconducted themselves and in the proceedings held before them by not affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant merely on the ground that the appellant failed to deposit the fee of the Arbitrators. Indisputably, the jurisdiction of the courts to examine the correctness of the award is very limited and can be exercised only when the challenge is made on one or more grounds as enumerated in any one of the Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, normally the decision of the Arbitrator is not interfered as the decision of the Arbitrator who is chosen by the parties themselves must be respected unless there exists total perversity or irrationality in the award or the Arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings held before him. 2. Confining ourselves to the above settled legal parameters, we will examine as to whether the Arbitral Tribunal in the present case adhered to the principles of natural justice and had afforded fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant in the conduct of the proceedings before them. 3. Before adverting to delve on the rival contentions of the parties, we deem it necessary to give brief facts of the case. 4. On 6.3.1984, respondent No. 2 National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC in short) invited tenders for the supply and erection of transmission lines and towers for Kanpur-Etah and Kanpur-Kanpur 400 KV lines and in response thereto respondent No. 1 Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (EMC in short) submitted a tender. Respondent No. 2/NTPC had awarded the contract in favour of respondent No. 1 at a total contract price of Rs. 290.52 lacs. Respondent No. 1 raised various claims against respondent No. 2 of the total amount of Rs. 91,02,621.99. Respondent No. 2 constituted a Committee to examine the said claims raised by respondent No. 1 and on 3.1.1991, the Committee accepted claims of Rs. 290.52 lacs. Respondent No. 1 raised various claims against respondent No. 2 of the total amount of Rs. 91,02,621.99. Respondent No. 2 constituted a Committee to examine the said claims raised by respondent No. 1 and on 3.1.1991, the Committee accepted claims of Rs. 10.35 lacs against claim of Rs. 91.02 lacs on the condition that respondent No. 1 would not make any further claim. Various meetings between respondent No. 1 and 2 were held between 14.5.1991 and 9.7.1991 to amicably settle the claims but with no positive results. In the meanwhile on 23.10.1989, National Power Transmission Corporation (later on came to be known as Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.) was incorporated with an authorized capital of Rs. 5000 crores with an object of moving large blocks of power from various generating sources to their respective load centres and to have national power grid in the country (wherever the expression Appellant is used that will mean and include NPTC being successor in interest of NTPC). 5. On 12.7.1991, Government of India through Ministry of Power and Non-conventional Energy Sources issued an order directing respondent No. 2 and the appellant to enter into an agreement for the transfer of electric transmission system under the control of respondent No. 2 to the appellant. Pursuant to the said directions, the appellant entered into an agreement with respondent No. 2 dated 13.8.1991 inter alia transferring/authorizing the management, execution and control of various projects which were earlier undertaken by respondent No. 2 to the appellant. On 14.8.1991, NTPC respondent No. 2 executed a general power of attorney in favour of the appellant to exercise all rights and power and to discharge all obligations of respondent No. 2. On 4/28.11.1991, respondent No. 2/NTPC sent a letter to respondent No. 1/EMC stating that the management of construction, operation and maintenance of transmission system was transferred to the appellant w.e.f. 16.8.1991 and advised that all future correspondence should be made only to the appellant. Respondent No. 1/EMC duly acknowledged the receipt of the above letter vide communication dated 17.12.1991. Respondent No. 1/EMC wrote to respondent No. 2 NTPC on 20.3.1992 thereby invoking arbitration clause and calling upon respondent No. 2 to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the contract and intimate the same to the Institution of Engineers at Kolkata in order to enable them to appoint the third Arbitrator. Respondent No. 1/EMC wrote to respondent No. 2 NTPC on 20.3.1992 thereby invoking arbitration clause and calling upon respondent No. 2 to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the contract and intimate the same to the Institution of Engineers at Kolkata in order to enable them to appoint the third Arbitrator. Respondent No. 2/NTPC vide their communication dated 24.4.1992 wrote to respondent No. 1/EMC clarifying that they were no more dealing with the contract and therefore, asked respondent No. 1 to contact the appellant. Since respondent No. 2 failed to appoint its Arbitrator within the stipulated period of 60 days in terms of the Arbitration Clause, as a result thereof, respondent No. 1 vide its letter dated 7.7.1992 called upon the President of the Institution of Engineers to nominate the Arbitrator. The Institution of Engineers vide letter dated 29.9.1992 nominated Shri P.P. Agrawal as the second Arbitrator and also appointed Shri Som Gupta as the third Arbitrator. The Arbitral Tribunal made and published the award vide award dated 5.5.1993 and feeling aggrieved with the said award, the appellant had filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The Arbitrators entered upon the reference on 13.1.1993 only against respondent No. 2 without directing any notice upon the appellant. However, the appellant had taken up the matter with respondent No. 1/EMC on 4.2.1993 offering to settle the matter without an arbitration. The second meeting of the Arbitrators was held on 11.2.1993 but no notice prior to the said date was given to the appellant. In the second meeting none was present from the side of NTPC and, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte. However, the factum of promulgation of ordinance on 8.1.1993 whereby all the assets and liabilities of respondent No. 2/NTPC were taken over by the appellant was duly noticed by the Arbitrators. Keeping in view the said fact, a request was made on behalf of respondent No. 1 to implead the appellant as a party which was agreed upon by the Arbitral Tribunal. The third meeting was held on 7.4.1993 after an intimation was sent to all the parties by telegram. None appeared before the Arbitrators for either respondent No. 1 or the appellant and thereafter meeting was fixed for 20.4.1993 to continue till 23.4.1993. The third meeting was held on 7.4.1993 after an intimation was sent to all the parties by telegram. None appeared before the Arbitrators for either respondent No. 1 or the appellant and thereafter meeting was fixed for 20.4.1993 to continue till 23.4.1993. In the meanwhile, on 09.04.1993, the appellant appeared through counsel and made a request to the Arbitrators to adjourn the proceedings as the matter could be settled and also that they intended to challenge the appointment of Arbitrators. On the adjourned date of 20.4.1993, the appellant appeared through their Deputy Manager (Law) and the counsel, but as per the appellant they were not allowed to present their case unless the appellant made payment to the Arbitrators towards their share of Arbitrators fee. The appellant, thereafter did not participate in the arbitration proceedings for the next three dates and the same were ultimately concluded on 23.4.1993. An ex-parte award was thus passed on 5.5.1993 for a sum of Rs. 72,69,096/- as against the original claim of Rs. 3,98,15,875.05. Feeling aggrieved with the said award, the appellant had preferred objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act seeking setting aside of the award. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.2.2006 has dismissed the said objections which order is under challenge by the appellant in the present appeal. .6. The challenge to the said order of the learned Single Judge by the appellant is primarily on two grounds; viz. .(i) Because of the conduct of respondent No. 1, the valuable right of the appellant to appoint an Arbitrator was taken away, denial of which has rendered the entire arbitration proceedings invalid and void ab initio. .(ii) The Arbitrators have misconducted themselves by not permitting the counsel for the appellant to appear in the matter although the appellant was duly present along with their counsel. .7. Mr. Vikas Singh, Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellant argued that the valuable right of the appellant to appoint an Arbitrator was taken away despite the fact that respondent No. 1/EMC was duly notified about the assignment of rights of NTPC in favour of the appellant but still respondent No. 1 failed to call upon the appellant to appoint an Arbitrator and had mischieviously written to the NTPC on 20.3.1992 thereby invoking the arbitration clause. Counsel thus sought to urge that such failure on the part of respondent No. 1 resulted in serious prejudice to the rights of the appellant. Counsel also contended that any provision requiring service of notice need to be strictly construed as the absence or failure to serve notice on the affecting party results into civil consequences. Counsel further contended that under the standard form of contract the appellant had the unconditional right being an assignee of the contracting party to be called upon for appointment of an Arbitrator. To strengthen his argument further, counsel for the appellant contended that not only the nomination of the appellant as assignee was duly notified by the NTPC to the EMC on 04/28.11.1991 but the same was duly accepted by the EMC vide their reply dated 17.12.1991 without their being any sort of objection. The said confirmation of receipt of the letter by the EMC was notified to the NTPC as well as the appellant and therefore, as per the counsel for the appellant, the assignment in favour of the appellant became complete on 17.12.1991 thereby making it imperative for respondent No. 2/NTPC to call upon the appellant for appointment of an Arbitrator instead of calling the NTPC. Counsel further contended that the EMC did not forward the copy of the letter dated 20.3.1992 to the appellant as the same was addressed to NTPC alone. .The right of the appellant has been set at naught by respondent No. 1 in such an illegal manner due to which the appellant got deprived of its legitimate right as an assignee to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration Clause of the contract, argued the learned Counsel for the appellant. 8. Counsel for the appellant further contended that the respondent No. 1 never raised any objection to the said assignment of the rights by the NTPC in favour of the NPTC which fact would be evident from letter dated 17.12.1991 sent by respondent No. 1 in acknowledgment of letter dated 4/28.11.1991, copy of which has been separately endorsed by respondent No. 1 to the Additional General Manager, National Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd., Allahabad. Counsel, thus, contended that there was unequivocal and unconditional acceptance of assignment of all obligations of NTPC in favour of NPTC arising out of the contract between the parties. Ltd., Allahabad. Counsel, thus, contended that there was unequivocal and unconditional acceptance of assignment of all obligations of NTPC in favour of NPTC arising out of the contract between the parties. The assignment in favour of the appellant thus became complete on 17.12.1991 as respondent No. 1 did not raise any sort of protest to the letter dated 4/28.11.1991 sent by NTPC notifying the said assignment in favour of the appellant NPTC. .9. On the second contention of the appellant denying opportunity to participate in the arbitral proceedings, counsel for the appellant contended that no notice was served upon the appellant even after appearance by the appellant before the Arbitrator. No opportunity was granted to the appellant to participate in the proceedings by adopting a hyper technical approach of requiring the appellant to pay the Arbitrators fee at the first instance. Counsel for the appellant thus, contended that the Arbitrators had clearly misconducted themselves and the arbitration proceedings and wrongly passed an ex-parte award against the appellant. In support of his arguments, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. National Research Development Corporation of India v. Synthite Industrial Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. 69 (1997) DLT 1005 . 2. CIT v. Pratapsingh Bahadur [1961] 41 ITR 421 (SC) 3. Dharma Prathishthanam v. Madhok Construction (P) Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 214 4. Union of India v. D.N. Revri and Co. and Ors. [1977] 1 SCR 483 . 5. Nandyal Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd. v. K.V. Mohan Rao [1993] 2 SCR 280 6. Lovely Benefit Chit Fund and Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Puran Dutt Sood and Ors. AIR 1983 Delhi 413 7. Milkfood Ltd. v. GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd. (2004) SCC 288 8. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1981 Cal 440 9. Juggilal Kamlapat v. General Fibre Dealers Ltd. AIR 1955 Cal 354 .10. Per contra, Mr. Manmohan, Sr. Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 vehemently refuted the submissions of counsel for the appellant. In reply to the first contention of counsel for the appellant, counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that there was no privity of contract between the appellant and respondent No. 1 and no assignment in favour of appellant could have taken place by merely acknowledging a letter dated 4/28.11.1991. In reply to the first contention of counsel for the appellant, counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that there was no privity of contract between the appellant and respondent No. 1 and no assignment in favour of appellant could have taken place by merely acknowledging a letter dated 4/28.11.1991. Counsel further contended that even from a bare reading of letter dated 4/28.11.1991, it would be manifest that NPTC was appointed only as a manager of the transmission line. Counsel for respondent No. 1 further submitted that broadly assignment can take place under two circumstances, one is assignment by statute/operation of law and the other is equitable assignment of contract. In the case of appointment by statute/operation of law, no consent of the contractor or any third party is required. However, in the case of equitable assignment of a contract, specific consent to such assignment is required so as to relieve the assignor of its obligations towards the contractor. Mere acknowledgment of letter by respondent No. 1 would not suffice to infer that respondent No. 1 had given a consent to the said assignment. Even the Government of India, had issued an ordinance much later i.e. dated 8.1.1993 transferring the power transmission system from various organizations including NTPC first, to the Central Government and subsequently to the Power Grid Corporation, appellant herein, w.e.f. 20.3.1992 which fact would clearly show that no assignment could take place by virtue of agreement dated 13.8.1991. In the circumstances, there was no illegality on the part of respondent No. 1 to have given notice invoking arbitration clause only to NTPC and not the appellant, counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended. In support of his arguments, counsel for respondent No. 1 has placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. Shrikant v. Vasantrao and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 918 2. Kharadah Company v. Raymon & Company (India Pvt. Ltd.) (1963) 3 SCR 183 11. Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the interpretation of word "assignee" as defined in the Blacks Law Dictionary. The meaning of the word "assignee" as per Blacks Law Dictionary is as under: assignee - One to who a property rights or powers are transferred by another. Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the interpretation of word "assignee" as defined in the Blacks Law Dictionary. The meaning of the word "assignee" as per Blacks Law Dictionary is as under: assignee - One to who a property rights or powers are transferred by another. Use of the term is so widespread that it is difficult to ascribe positive meaning to it with any specificity Courts recognize the protean nature of the term and are therefore often forced to look to the intent of the assignor and assignee in making the assignment rather than to the formality of the use of the term assignee - in defining rights and responsibilities. 12. The contention of the counsel for the respondent is that both the appellant and the NTPC were well aware that no assignment had taken place by virtue of the agreement dated 13th August, 1991. Deriving support from the ordinance dated 8.1.1993, subsequently issued by the Government of India, the counsel contended that it is only on this date the power transmission system from various organizations including NTPC got transferred first to the Central Government and then to the appellant w.e.f. 1st April, 1992. Counsel thus sought to urge that as on the date of invocation of arbitration i.e. 20th March, 1992 no transfer of transmission system had actually taken place from NTPC to the appellant (erstwhile NPTC) and, therefore, there was no illegality on the part of respondent directing a notice to the NTPC alone for seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause of the agreement. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 also submitted that the notice dated 20th March, 1992 was duly forwarded by the NTPC to NPTC i.e. predecessor of the appellant, but despite being fully aware of the said notice the appellant failed to take any action. Counsel further contended that from the documents produced by the appellant before the learned Single Judge it is clearly evident that the correspondence exchanged between the EMC and NTPC was duly forwarded to NPTC by NTPC. The counsel for the respondent No. 1 thus laid much emphasis on the fact of the appellant being fully aware of all the events taking place between EMC and the NTPC including that of invoking arbitration clause. The counsel for the respondent No. 1 thus laid much emphasis on the fact of the appellant being fully aware of all the events taking place between EMC and the NTPC including that of invoking arbitration clause. The counsel thus contended that the appellant cannot raise any grievance of not being given due opportunity to participate before the Arbitrators as the appellant had due information and knowledge of all the dates of hearing. Not only this the appellants duly appeared and participated in the hearing at the initial stage, but later on deliberately and intentionally avoided to appear so as to create a ground to challenge the Award. Even after causing appearance before the Arbitrators, the appellant did not bother to pay the Arbitrators fee. Due to the willful non-participation of the appellant after its initial appearance before the Arbitral Tribunal, the ex parte Award against them was passed by the Arbitrators for which the appellant has to blame itself instead of placing the blame on the Arbitrators, alleging misconduct, the counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended. 13. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made at the bar, gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge and perused the records. Before delving on the submissions made by the counsels we would like to briefly summarize the facts, which are not in dispute between the parties. The contract for 400 KV transmission line Tower package for Rihand STPP, Kanpur-Etah and Kanpur - Kanpur Lines was awarded by the NTPC in favour of EMC i.e. respondent No. 1 herein. The contract awarded in favour of the respondent was completed in the month of October, 1988 and the line was taken over by the NTPC, respondent No. 2 in January, 1989. The dispute arose between the parties and a committee was appointed by the respondent No. 2 NTPC and proposed a settlement on 3.1.1991 accepting only a claim of Rs. 10.35 lakhs against the claim of the respondent/EMC for Rs. 91.02 lakhs. There is an arbitration clause i.e. Clause 26.0 in the contract. The respondent EMC had sent a letter dated 18.7.1991 to the Executive Director of NTPC seeking adjudication of the dispute in terms of Clause 26.1 within a period of 30 days. 10.35 lakhs against the claim of the respondent/EMC for Rs. 91.02 lakhs. There is an arbitration clause i.e. Clause 26.0 in the contract. The respondent EMC had sent a letter dated 18.7.1991 to the Executive Director of NTPC seeking adjudication of the dispute in terms of Clause 26.1 within a period of 30 days. The Executive Director of NTPC vide letter dated 14.8.1991 confirmed to the EMC that the said request made by the letter dated 18.7.1991 was forwarded to the GM (TL-NR), in terms of the said Clause 26.1 of the contract. It is further not in dispute that on 12th July, 1991 the Government of India directed the NTPC to enter into an agreement with the EMC for transfer of electric transmission system to the NPTC now the Power Grid Corporation (appellant herein). On 13th August, 1991 NPTC entered into a contract agreement with NTPC, inter alia, for the transfer of the management, execution and control of various transmission projects, which were earlier undertaken by the NTPC. On 14.8.1991 NTPC also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of NPTC in order to vest the NPTC with complete control of the power transmission system. It is further not in dispute that on 4/28.11.1991 NTPC wrote a letter to EMC informing the said transfer by NTPC to NPTC and for making all future correspondence to be undertaken by the EMC with the NPTC. EMC, respondent No. 1 on 17.12.1991 had duly confirmed the receipt of the said letter and categorically stated that the contents of the said letter stood noted. Copy of this letter dated 17.12.1991 was also sent by EMC to NPTC. On 20.3.1992 EMC wrote to the NTPC invoking the arbitration clause without calling upon the NPTC or making such similar request to NPTC. EMC made a request on 7.7.1992 to the Institution of Engineers to make the appointment of Arbitrators on behalf of NTPC on the failure of the NTPC to do so in terms of Clause 26.6.1 of the contract. The Institution of Engineers had appointed second and third Arbitrator on 29.9.1992. The Government of India on 8.1.1993 issued a Notification providing for transfer of power transmission system from NTPC to the NPTC retrospectively w.e.f. 1.4.1992. The Arbitrators entered upon the reference only against NTPC on 13.1.1993 without issuing any notice to the NPTC its successor. 14. The Institution of Engineers had appointed second and third Arbitrator on 29.9.1992. The Government of India on 8.1.1993 issued a Notification providing for transfer of power transmission system from NTPC to the NPTC retrospectively w.e.f. 1.4.1992. The Arbitrators entered upon the reference only against NTPC on 13.1.1993 without issuing any notice to the NPTC its successor. 14. The above narration of facts, which are not in dispute between the parties would clearly show that an agreement dated 13th August, 1991 between the two Corporations i.e. NTPC and NPTC did take place pursuant to the decision of Government of India with a view to transfer the management, execution and control of various transmission projects from NTPC to NPTC. Immediately after this agreement NTPC vide their letter dated 4/28.11.1991 wrote to respondent No. 1 EMC informing them about the said development with a request to notify all future correspondence to the DGM (CS) NPTC pertaining to the said contract in question. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the following paragraphs from the said letter: In line with the directives of the Government of India vide ref. No. 1/12/91-NPTC/Vol. -II dtd. 12.7.91, NTPC & NPTC have entered into an Agreement dated. 13.8.91 for management of Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Transmission System and associated facilities of NTPC by NPTC w.e.f. 16.8.91 pending completion of all legal formalities for transfer of ownership of this Transmission System to NPTC in due course of time. NTPC have also accordingly executed a Power of Attorney on 14.8.91 in favour of NPTC which inter-alia empowers it (NPTC) to act as its Manager for the purpose of construction, operation and maintenance of the transmission system and to exercise all rights and powers and discharge all obligations of NTPC including payments to the contractor in accordance with the terms of the said Contract with existing Contractors and said Agreement dtd. 13.8.91 Accordingly National Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Shall henceforth administer the aforesaid captioned Contract w.e.f. 16.8.91 for and on behalf of NTPC. Except the above changes all other terms and conditions of the said Contract shall remain unaltered and binding. The bank guarantees and other securities such as Contract performance Guarantees, Advance Bank Guarantees, Undertakings and Indemnity Bond etc. already submitted by you in favour of NTPC shall remain valid and operative and would continue to be enforceable in accordance with their respective terms. The bank guarantees and other securities such as Contract performance Guarantees, Advance Bank Guarantees, Undertakings and Indemnity Bond etc. already submitted by you in favour of NTPC shall remain valid and operative and would continue to be enforceable in accordance with their respective terms. You are advised to notify all future correspondence(s) to the DGM (CS) NPTC Ltd., Hemkunt Chambers, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 pertaining to the said Contract. .15. This very letter sent by the NTPC dated 4/28th November, 1991 was duly acknowledged by EMC vide their communication dated 17th December, 1991, the copy of which was endorsed to the NTPC, New Delhi and to the Additional GM, NTPC, Allahabad with clear acknowledgment therein that the contents of the communication dated 17th December, 1991 have been duly noted. Now after the EMC having been made fully aware of the fact that the Government of India took the decision to transfer the management and execution of various transmission projects in favour of NPTC, but still for the reasons best known to the EMC the arbitration clause was invoked by writing a letter to the NTPC without even endorsing a copy thereof to the NPTC. A letter dated 24.4.1992 was sent by NTPC to EMC clarifying that they were no more dealing with the contract and asked EMC to contact the appellant herein. Even after the receipt of such a letter the EMC had chosen to make a request vide their letter dated 7.7.1992 to the Institution of Engineers to make the appointment of Arbitrators on account of failure of NTPC to appoint an Arbitrator although called upon to do so by the EMC vide their letter dated 20th March, 1992. As per the respondent EMC copy of the letter dated 20th march, 1992 was duly forwarded by NTPC to NPTC, but still NPTC did not come forward to appoint an Arbitrator. The precise question is whether sending of such letter by NTPC to NPTC can absolve the EMC of its own obligation. As per the respondent EMC copy of the letter dated 20th march, 1992 was duly forwarded by NTPC to NPTC, but still NPTC did not come forward to appoint an Arbitrator. The precise question is whether sending of such letter by NTPC to NPTC can absolve the EMC of its own obligation. The legal issue as to whether the proper and valid assignment between the NTPC and NPTC had taken place by the agreement dated 13th August, 1991, which could have the binding effect on the contractor i.e. EMC or not became a contentious issue after the parties locked their horns in a legal battle otherwise, no plausible explanation has comeforth from the side of the respondent as to why the respondent EMC did not choose to take up the matter with NPTC or invoke the arbitration clause by writing a letter to NPTC or even endorsing the same to NPTC after having raised no objection to the communication made by NTPC vide their letter dated 4/28.11.1991. There is also no denial of the fact that the Government of India issued a Notification in the gazette providing for transfer of the power transmission from NTPC to NPTC with retrospective effect from 1.4.1992. Acting on the request of the EMC the Institution of Engineers had appointed second and third Arbitrators on 29.9.1992 and the Arbitrators had also called upon NTPC for filing their statement of claims/objections without directing any notice on the appellant or NPTC. Next meeting before the Arbitrators was fixed on 11.2.1993 and in the second meeting NTPC was proceeded ex parte on account of their absence. However, on the said date the issue of ordinance dated 8.1.1993 was brought to the notice of the Arbitrators so as to apprise the Arbitrators about the fact of NPTC taking over of all assets and liabilities of NTPC with effect from the date mentioned therein. On the same date request was also made by EMC contractor to implead NPTC as a party, which was agreed to by the Arbitrators. The third meeting before the Arbitrators was held on 7.4.1993 and intimation to this effect was duly sent to all the parties. On 9.4.1993 the appellant appeared through counsel to request the Arbitral Tribunal to adjourn the proceedings on the ground that they wanted to challenge the appointment of Arbitrators and also they would like to amicably settle the matter. The third meeting before the Arbitrators was held on 7.4.1993 and intimation to this effect was duly sent to all the parties. On 9.4.1993 the appellant appeared through counsel to request the Arbitral Tribunal to adjourn the proceedings on the ground that they wanted to challenge the appointment of Arbitrators and also they would like to amicably settle the matter. Counsel for the appellant along with their Deputy Manager (Law) appeared before the Arbitrators on 20.4.1993, but the Arbitrators did not entertain them unless payment of their share of the Arbitrators fees was made by them. Nobody appeared before the Arbitral Tribunal either from the side of the appellant or from the side of NTPC from 21.4.1993 to 25.4.1993 although proceedings were held and concluded on 24.4.1993 and finally the Award was made on 5.5.1993. .16. According to the appellant the valuable right of appointing an Arbitrator was taken away from it without taking up the matter with the appellant. The contractor EMC had chosen to take up the matter with the NTPC knowing fully well that agreement dated 13th July, 1991 already had come into effect. As per the respondent there was no assignment of the rights in favour of the appellant by NTPC, therefore, the respondent EMC was not obligated to write to the appellant for invoking the arbitration clause. Learned Single Judge has dealt with this issue in detail and concluded that the EMC was not obliged to take up the matter with the appellant (NPTC) since the invocation of the arbitration clause had taken place on 20th March, 1992 i.e., much prior to 1.4.1992, the date with effect from which the Government had transferred the rights and obligations in favour of NPTC. The issue as to whether or not the EMC was obliged to take up the matter with the appellant as an assignee of NTPC became academic since the appellant had itself chosen to present itself before the Arbitrators. The entire problem as per the appellant arose when they were asked to deposit the Arbitrators fee as a prerequisite for their participation, therefore, we will examine the controversy confining to the issue as to whether the Arbitrators had misconducted themselves during the course of the arbitral proceedings. The entire problem as per the appellant arose when they were asked to deposit the Arbitrators fee as a prerequisite for their participation, therefore, we will examine the controversy confining to the issue as to whether the Arbitrators had misconducted themselves during the course of the arbitral proceedings. This position emerges due to the fact that the take over of the said management and execution of power transmission by the appellant was not in dispute at least after the proclamation of the ordinance by the Government of India. It would have been better had respondent No. 1 EMC itself called upon the appellant to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 26.6.1 of the Agreement and even before the Arbitrators the EMC should have impleaded the appellant as well. 17. Considering the above backdrop, we are of the view that the Arbitrators have unnecessarily acted in haste in concluding the arbitral proceedings. Once the appellant had appeared before them, the least they should have done was to afford some reasonable time to the appellant to file its objections to the statement of claim filed by the respondent EMC. The Arbitrators also could have given a peremptory notice to the appellant before proceeding ex parte against them. Even after proceeding ex-parte against the appellant the Arbitrators still could have called upon them to cause appearance in the matter. Although, the applicability of the principle of audi alteram partem depends on the facts of each case and in a given case the parties may be required to show as to what prejudice has been caused to its rights due to non-observance of principles of natural justice, yet keeping in view the sanctity and primacy of this basic and equitable principle, it is expected of every judicial and quasi judicial authority to always give due primacy and make a serious endeavour that the sacrosanct principles of audi alteram partem are duly observed in letter and spirit. The mechanism of arbitration came to be evolved for providing speedier justice to the parties, especially in commercial transactions where monetary stakes of the parties are sometimes very high and an inordinate delay in the disposal of arbitration matters could prove fatal and ruinous. However, at the same time the cardinal principle of giving a fair opportunity to the parties should not have been lost sight of by the adjudicatory body. However, at the same time the cardinal principle of giving a fair opportunity to the parties should not have been lost sight of by the adjudicatory body. The appellant had appeared on 9th April, 1993 as well as on 20th April, 1993, but they were not allowed to participate in the proceedings and thereafter within four days i.e. from 21.4.1993 to 25.4.1993 the same were concluded. We do not find any justification on the part of the Arbitrators to have rushed through the matter to conclude the proceedings without examining the version of the other side. 18. In relation to reasonable opportunity of being heard, in Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta (2003) 7 SCC 492 , the Honble Apex Court observed as under: 20. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law that the parties would be entitled to a reasonable opportunity of putting their case. [See Montrose Canned Foods Ltd. v. Eric Wells (Merchants) Ltd. 2 ] A reasonable opportunity would mean that a party must be given an opportunity to explain his arguments before the Tribunal and to adduce evidence in support of his case. However, under the old Act, an oral hearing would only be permitted if a party requested one, unless there was some agreement to the contrary. (See Henry Southeran Ltd. v. Norwich Union Life Insurance Society 3.) 21. What would constitute a reasonable opportunity of putting case as also qualification of the right has been stated in Russell on Arbitration , 22nd Edn., paragraphs 5-053 and 5-054 which are in the following terms: 5-053. A reasonable opportunity of putting case.-Each party must be given a reasonable opportunity to present his own case. This means he must be given an opportunity to explain his arguments to the Tribunal and to adduce evidence in support of his case. Failure to comply with this requirement may render the award subject to challenge under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It is also a ground for refusing enforcement of the resulting award under the New York Convention. 5-054. Qualification of the right.-The need to allow a party a reasonable opportunity to present his case can give rise to difficulties. Failure to comply with this requirement may render the award subject to challenge under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It is also a ground for refusing enforcement of the resulting award under the New York Convention. 5-054. Qualification of the right.-The need to allow a party a reasonable opportunity to present his case can give rise to difficulties. To what extent can the Tribunal intervene where, for example, a partys submissions or evidence is needlessly long, repetitive, focuses on irrelevant issues or is sought to be made over an extended period of time? What if a party ignores procedural deadlines imposed by the Tribunal but maintains he still has points to put before it in support of his case? Inevitably, each situation has to be dealt with in its own context but the following general considerations should be taken into account. 22. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that a party does not have an unfettered right. The arbitrator cannot only ask a party to comply with procedural orders and directions including those imposing limits as to time and content of submissions and evidence but the arbitrator also has a right of managing the hearing. In Russell on Arbitration , 22nd Edn. the law is stated thus: 5-057. Managing the hearing.-Similarly, a Tribunal cannot be expected to sit through extended oral hearings listening to long-winded submissions on irrelevant matters. The Tribunal is entitled, and under Section 33 is obliged and encouraged, to avoid the unnecessary delay and expense that would be caused by such an approach. The Tribunal should take a grip on the proceedings and indicate to the parties those areas on which it particularly wishes to be addressed and those which it does not consider relevant to the real issues in dispute. If a party fails to heed such guidance, the Tribunal might seek to focus the proceedings by allocating the remaining hearing time between the parties. This the Tribunal is entitled to do, provided it will allow a reasonable time for both parties to put forward their arguments and evidence. 23. For constituting a reasonable opportunity, the following conditions are required to be observed: 1. Each party must have notice that the hearing is to take place. 2. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to be present at the hearing, together with his advisers and witnesses. 3. 23. For constituting a reasonable opportunity, the following conditions are required to be observed: 1. Each party must have notice that the hearing is to take place. 2. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to be present at the hearing, together with his advisers and witnesses. 3. Each party must have the opportunity to be present throughout the hearing. 4. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument in support of his own case. 5. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to test his opponents case by cross-examining his witnesses, presenting rebutting evidence and addressing oral argument. 6. The hearing must, unless the contrary is expressly agreed, be the occasion on which the parties present the whole of their evidence and argument. 18. Indisputably, the arbitrators would in law neglect their duty if they do not listen to one party who might be interested either in controverting or who is legally entitled to controvert the claim of the party approaching them. Similarly, the person who is to be affected by the evidence ought to be present to hear it so that he would be able to meet and answer it. The arbitrator is ordinarily free from the fetters of procedural law but that does not make him free from the fundamental principles of justice. Though the arbitrator may not strictly follow the rules and procedures as observed by the Civil Court but at the same time it would not imply that the Arbitrary Tribunal can ignore or circumvent the principles of natural justice and fair procedure. The omission in giving notice to a party before proceeding ex-party is a serious irregularity in the procedure and amounts to misconduct. It is a salutary principle of natural justice that nobody should be condemned unheard. 19. In Halsburys Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 2 Page 590 page 306 it has been stated as under: Where the arbitrator proposes to proceed with the reference notwithstanding the absence if one of the parties, it is advisable that he should give that party distinct notice of his intention to do so. If reasonable excuse for not attending the appointment can be shown, the court will set aside an award made by an arbitrator who has proceeded ex parte. 20. In Russell on Arbitration, Nineteenth Edition page 271 the following passage appears. If reasonable excuse for not attending the appointment can be shown, the court will set aside an award made by an arbitrator who has proceeded ex parte. 20. In Russell on Arbitration, Nineteenth Edition page 271 the following passage appears. Notice of intention to proceed ex parte: In general, the arbitrator is not justified in proceeding ex parte without giving the party absenting himself due notice. It is advisable to give the notice in writing to each of the parties or their solicitors. It should express the arbitrators intention clearly, otherwise the award may be set aside. An ordinary appointment for a meeting with the addition of the word" "Peremptory" marked on it is, however, sufficient. If the arbitrator declines to proceed on the first failure to attend a peremptory appointment, and gives another appointment, he is not authorised to proceed ex-parte at the second meeting, unless the appointment for it was also marked "peremptory" or contained a similar intimation of his intention. 21. The elementary Principle of Natural Justice implies a duty to act fairly i.e., fair play in action. The Principle of Natural Justice is not dogmatic in character and a duty is cast upon on every adjudicatory body be it judicial or quasi judicial to strictly adhere to the Principle of Natural Justice unless such adherence is dispensed with under any particular Statute. The Rules of Natural Justice are although not embodied Rules, but the same afford minimum protection to the rights of any person against the arbitrariness of any authority be it judicial, quasi judicial or administrative whose decision involves any civil consequences or can affect the rights of an individual. The aim of Rules of Natural Justice is to secure justice or to put it in the negative to prevent miscarriage of justice. 22. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the relevant provisions of the enactment known as National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., Hydro Electric Power Corp. Ltd., and the North-Eastern Power Electric Corporation (Acquisition and Transfer of Power Transmission System) Act 1993, to arrive at a finding that the transfer of rights in favour of appellant were yet to take place before invocation of Arbitration Clause by the respondent EMC. Ltd., and the North-Eastern Power Electric Corporation (Acquisition and Transfer of Power Transmission System) Act 1993, to arrive at a finding that the transfer of rights in favour of appellant were yet to take place before invocation of Arbitration Clause by the respondent EMC. The learned Single Judge also took a view that retrospectivity of the obligations and the rights of the respondent NTPC vesting in the appellant (NPTC) w.e.f. 1.4.92 would only imply that the appointment of arbitrator on behalf of the respondent EMC was also binding on the appellant (NPTC). While appreciating the said position, the communication made by the respondent NTPC dated 28.11.92 to the respondent EMC cannot be totally brushed aside. The said communication, contents of which have already been reproduced above, mention about the directives received from the Government of India for the transfer of the entire management, operation and maintenance of transmission system of NTPC to NPTC w.e.f. 16/8/91 with further assertion of transfer of whole powers by NPTC in favour of NTPC including payments to the contractor in accordance with terms of the contract with existing contractor. No explanation or reasons have been advanced by the counsel for the respondent No. 1 as to why such a communication which was duly acknowledged by the respondent EMC was totally ignored. Now since the arbitral Tribunal had called upon respondent No. 2 to appear before them on 13/1/93. after the proclamation of the Ordinance dated 8.1.93 was brought to their notice by the respondent EMC, therefore, it can be safely assumed that right of the appellant to participate before the Arbitral Tribunal as successor interest of NTPC no more remain in doubt. Although, the conduct of both the corporations i.e., NTPC & NPTC, (appellant) in adopting a very casual and lackadaisical approach in not timely taking the actions including for an appointment of an arbitrator and also for their non-appearance before the arbitral Tribunal exhibits their total insensitivity to the monetary claims of the duly appointed contractor and their own financial interests yet at the same time the said contractor i.e., EMC cannot completely absolve itself to share the blame by not adhering to the said communication dated 28.11.92. The respondent EMC was not oblivious of the said fact of transfer of ownership of the transmission system by NTPC in favour of the appellant (NPTC), although, the same came to be notified through an ordinance on 8.1.93. 23. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, we are of the view that since admittedly the appellant is the successor in the interest of NTPC/NPTC and is answerable to discharge all the obligations of NTPC including payments, if any, to the contractors including the respondent No. 1 herein and which position stands duly acknowledged by the Arbitral Tribunal after service of notice upon the appellant, therefore, it will be an exercise in futility to go into issue of validity of proper and legal assignment of the contract by NTPC in favour of the appellant at this stage. 24. As already discussed above, the Arbitral Tribunal has acted in utter haste in rushing through the arbitration proceedings without affording proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant in presenting its case, we, therefore, feel that the interest of justice will be best served if we refer the matter again to a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties afresh after giving due opportunity to both the parties. The appointment of a sole arbitrator would in our opinion cut short delay in the disposal of the controversy which will remain raging for another decade if we are to direct the process of appointment of the arbitrators to be started de novo. 25. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the award made by the arbitrators and refer the disputes between the parties to the sole arbitration of Justice A.S. Anand, former Chief Justice of India. The arbitrator shall be free to fix his fees. 26. Parties to appear before the sole arbitrator for direction on 11.8.2008.