1. The appellant-Abdul Qayoom Shah filed a Suit for declaration, partition and accounts of the usufruct of the suit properties, which included Shah Cinema Complex Qamarwari, Srinagar, against the State of Jammu and Kashmir and its functionaries in the Police Department, besides Nazir Ahmad Shah and Masood Ahmad Shah, his brothers, in the Court of Principal District Judge, Srinagar. 2. The Police Department of the State Government, deposited the rent payable for the Cinema in the Court. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings in the Suit, the parties thereto expressed their willingness to get their disputes adjudicated by the Arbitrator. Shri Ghulam Hassan Masoodi, Advocate was, therefore, appointed Arbitrator by the Court. The Arbitrator was, however, replaced by another and finally by Mr. Nazir Ahmad Ronga, Advocate. 4. The appellant sought release of the rent deposited in the Court in his favour. Considering his request and the Objections of the opposite party, the Arbitrator held him entitled to the release of Rs 40.00 Lac out of Rs 1,40,00,000/-, lying in deposit with the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar, vide order dated 08-05-2009. 5. On furnishing requisite undertaking, an amount of Rs 40.00 Lac was, accordingly, released in his favour. 6. The respondent-Nazir Ahmad Shah, too approached the Arbitrator seeking release of a reasonable amount out of the remaining amount in deposit with the Court. His request was opposed by the Appellant. 7. The Arbitrator directed release of an amount of Rs. 40.00 lac in his favour too, vide his order dated 08-10-2009. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the Arbitrator's order, the appellant questioned it before this Court by his Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal No. 185/2009, which was, however, held non-maintainable holding that, if aggrieved, the appellant was required to approach the District Court to seek setting aside of the Arbitrator's order, which was found by this Court an Interim Award in favour of the respondent. 9. The appellant, therefore, approached the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar by his Application under Section 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, seeking setting aside of the Arbitrator's Interim Award. His application was, however, dismissed by the Court vide its order of July 26,2010 holding that the challenge to the Interim Award was devoid of merit. 10. The appellant has again approached this Court by his Appeal questioning the order of the learned District Judge. 11. His application was, however, dismissed by the Court vide its order of July 26,2010 holding that the challenge to the Interim Award was devoid of merit. 10. The appellant has again approached this Court by his Appeal questioning the order of the learned District Judge. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant made a short submission to question the District Judge's order, urging that the learned Judge had erred in upholding the Interim Award omitting to appreciate that being in conflict with the Public Policy of the State, inter alia, reflected by the provisions of Sections 31(3) and 28 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1997, was liable to be set aside, in that, while directing release of Rs 40.00 Lac in favour of the respondent, the Arbitrator had neither dealt with the Objections of the appellant to the release of the amount nor had he assigned any reasons for making the Interim Award. 12. Meeting the appellant's learned Counsel's submissions, the respondent's learned Counsel would say that the provisions of Sections 31 and 28 of the Act were not attracted to the case because in the absence of any Agreement of the parties requiring the Arbitrator to give reasons to support its findings and Award, the Arbitrator was not required to spell out reasons while making the Interim Award, and the Award could not, this, be faulted. He further submitted that in view of the Law of the land, the Arbitrator is not required to spell out reasons in support of its Award and the view taken by the learned District Judge rejecting the appellant's challenge to the Award does not suffer from any error of law, warranting interfer­ence in Appeal. 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the Records and the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, hereinafter to be referred as, "the Act". 14. It is admitted case of the parties that the respondent's request for release of Rs 40.00 Lac out of the rental of Shah Cinema, deposited in the Court, had been objected today the Appellant on various grounds. 14. It is admitted case of the parties that the respondent's request for release of Rs 40.00 Lac out of the rental of Shah Cinema, deposited in the Court, had been objected today the Appellant on various grounds. It is also admitted that all that the Arbitrator has said while making the Interim Award directing release of the amount in favour of the respondents, is that the amount was required to be released in favour of the respondent on the same analogy it was released in favour of the appellant. 15. The question that, therefore, arises for determination, is as to whether or not the Arbitrator was obliged to give reasons while dealing with the case put up by the respondent seeking release of the amount, and the appellant's objections raised thereto, contesting the release of the amount in favour of the respondent, inter alia, urging that having already received money in excess of his share, the respondent was not entitled to the release of any amount. 16. Section 31, appearing in Chapter-VI of the Act, deals with the Form and Contents of arbitral Award. For facility of reference, it is re-produced as under:- "31. Form and contents of arbitral award. (1) An arbitral award shall be made in writing and shall be signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal; (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), in arbitral proceedings with more than one arbitrator, the signature of the majority of all the members of the arbitral tribunal shall be sufficient so long as the reasons for any omitted signature is stated. (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) x x x x x x x x ". 17. Sub-Section (3) of Section 31 mandates an arbitral Award, to state the reasons upon which it was passed. There are, however, two exceptions thereto, viz. the Arbitrator may not state reasons upon which, it was made, if (1) the parties had agreed that no reasons are to be given or (2) the award was an arbitral award on agreed terms under Section 30 i.e. pertaining to a Settlement between the parties. 18. There are, however, two exceptions thereto, viz. the Arbitrator may not state reasons upon which, it was made, if (1) the parties had agreed that no reasons are to be given or (2) the award was an arbitral award on agreed terms under Section 30 i.e. pertaining to a Settlement between the parties. 18. Plain reading of Section 31 (3), therefore, demonstrates that unless covered by the exceptions, an arbitral Award is necessarily required to state reasons upon which it was made. 19. When read with Section 28 of the Act, which refers to the Rules applicable to the substance of the dispute during arbitration, the legal position becomes apparent that the Arbitrator is required to conduct the arbitration proceedings in accordance with the substantive law for the time being in force in the State. 20. It, therefore, becomes clear that in view of the provisions of the Act, referred to hereinabove, the Arbitrator was required to state reasons upon which it had come to the conclusion that Rs 40.00 Lac was payable to the respondent, and for that purpose, he had to deal with the respondent's case set up to seek release of the amount and the appellant's Objections in response thereto, giving reasons in support of his conclusion thereon. He was not, however, required to write detailed judgment as a Court does, and all that was needed for him to do was to spell out reasons in support of his finding, holding the entitlement or otherwise of the respondent, to the release of the amount. 21. The learned Arbitrator has not dealt with the case projected by the respon­dent, and the appellant's detailed Response/Objections thereto, opposing release of the amount, inter alia, urging that he was not entitled thereto having already received amount in excess of his share in the suit properties. While making the Interim Award, all that the Arbitrator has referred to, though in detail, all the pleas projected by the respondent for release of the amount, and the Objections of the appellant thereto, but no reasons have been reflected in the Award to accept or reject the case projected by the parties in respect of the release or otherwise of the amount in favour of the respondent. 22. In short, the learned Arbitrator has opted not to state "reasons" in support of his findings and order holding the respondent entitled to Rs 40.00 Lac. 23. 22. In short, the learned Arbitrator has opted not to state "reasons" in support of his findings and order holding the respondent entitled to Rs 40.00 Lac. 23. The course adopted by the Arbitrator is, therefore, in violation of the provisions of Sections 31 & 28 of the Act. His order, which has been held by this Court to be an Interim Award, cannot thus be sustained for lack of reasons. 24. The view taken by the learned District Judge that the Arbitrator was not bound to give reasons to make the Award, based on the law laid down in Regional Provident Commissioner v. M/s Hind Builders, reported as AIR 1985 Orissa 103, is un-tenable for the learned District Judge appears to have been swayed by the law laid down under the Old Arbitration Act, which principle had no application in the present case, which was governed by the new Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in terms whereof, the Arbitrator is required, under law, to give reasons, in support of the Award, which was not, however, the legal position before coming into force of the new Act. 25. The respondent's learned Counsel's plea that as the parties, in terms of their submissions, had not specifically desired the Arbitrator to give reasons for the Award, so the Arbitrator was not required to spell out reasons in support of the Interim Award, cannot be accepted, for the submission is misconceived, in view of the provisions of the laws in force in the State, which mandate the Arbitrator to spell out reasons in support of his findings and the Award. 26. I am supported in taking the above view by M/s Som Datt Builders Ltd. v. State of Kerala, reported as 2009 (10) SCC 259 , where their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, held as follows:- "The requirement of reasons in support of the award under Section 31(3) is not an empty formality. It guarantees fair and legitimate consideration of the controversy by the arbitral tribunal. It is true that arbitral tribunal is not expected to write judgment like a Court nor it is expected to give elaborate and detailed reasons in support of its finding/s but mere noticing the submissions of the parties or reference to documents is no substitute for reasons which the arbitral tribunal is obliged to give. It is true that arbitral tribunal is not expected to write judgment like a Court nor it is expected to give elaborate and detailed reasons in support of its finding/s but mere noticing the submissions of the parties or reference to documents is no substitute for reasons which the arbitral tribunal is obliged to give. Howsoever brief these may be, reasons must be indicated in the award as that would reflect thought process leading to a particular conclusion. To satisfy the requirement of Section 31 (3), the reasons must be stated by the arbitral tribunal upon which the award is based; want of reasons would make such award legally flawed." 27. In view of the above legal position, the Arbitrator's Interim Award dated 08-10-2009, for release of an amount of Rs. 40.00 in favour of the respondent, without dealing with the issues raised before it, for and against the release of the amount and giving reasons in support of its Award, cannot be sustained and is required to be set aside. 28. Therefore, allowing the appellant's Application under Section 34 of the Act, the Arbitrator's Interim Award dated 08-10-°.009 and the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar's order dated 26-07-2010, are set aside. 29. This Appeal, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed, without any order as to costs.