JUDGMENT L. N. MITTAL, J. CM No.28273-CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.28274-CII of 2012 The application is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-8 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited having failed in both the Courts below has filed this revision petition under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short, the ‘Act’) to challenge judgments and decrees of the Courts below. At the outset, it has to be noticed that the instant revision petition has been filed under a wrong provision because Section 39(2) of the Act does not make any provision for filing of revision petition. Section 39 (1) provides for first appeal whereas Section 39(2) bars second appeal without affecting the right of appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly the instant revision petition is treated to be revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner gave contract to respondent No.1-contractor for supplying, laying down etc. of cables. Dispute arose between the parties which was referred to two Arbitrators namely S. K. Aggarwal and G. K. Gupta. They gave separate conflicting awards (Annexure P-7), the former negativing the claim of the petitioner whereas the latter accepting the claim of the petitioner. Consequently the matter was referred to umpire J. C. Kalra (proforma respondent No.2) who gave his award dated 06.01.1992 (Annexure P-8) negativing the claim of the petitioner. Respondent No.1-contractor filed application under Sections 14(2) and 41 of the Act for making the award of Umpire as rule of the Court. Petitioner herein challenged the award of the umpire by filing objections under Sections 15, 16, 30 and 33 of the Act. Respondent No.1-contractor contested and controverted the objections. Both the Courts below have dismissed the objections preferred by the petitioner and have consequently made the award of Umpire as rule of the Court and passed decree accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, instant revision petition has been preferred to challenge the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner simply contended that since both the Arbitrators had passed reasoned awards, the Umpire was also required to pass speaking and reasoned award but has passed non-speaking and unreasoned award and therefore, the said award is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner simply contended that since both the Arbitrators had passed reasoned awards, the Umpire was also required to pass speaking and reasoned award but has passed non-speaking and unreasoned award and therefore, the said award is liable to be set aside. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Electricity Board versus Bridge Tunnel Constructions and others, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 121. Counsel for the petitioner also fairly brought to the notice of this Court judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raipur Development Authority and others versus M/s. Chokhamal Contractors and others, (1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 721. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention. The Act did not provide for passing of reasoned award. Agreement between the parties also did not provide for passing of reasoned award. Consequently, merely because the two arbitrators, who gave conflincting awards, passed reasoned awards, it was not mandatory under any provision of law or precedent for the Umpire also to pass a reasoned award. The reason why the two Arbitrators gave reasoned award is not far to seek. They had to give reasoned awards because they were having difference of opinion. Consequently they passed reasoned awards. However, the Umpire was not required to pass reasoned award either under any provision of law or precedent or under any term and condition of the contract between the parties. Consequently impugned award given by the Umpire cannot be set aside merely on the ground that it was unreasoned award. It has been consistently laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as different High Courts including this Court that under the Act, Arbitrator had liberty to pass non-speaking or unreasoned award. Hon’ble Judgment in the case of Raipur Development Authority (supra) passed by constitutional Bench of five Hon’ble Judges authoritatively laid down that Arbitrator under the Act was not required to pass speaking or reasoned award. It was held that non-speaking award could not be set aside merely on the ground that it is non-speaking. Judgment in the case of T. N. Electricity Board (supra) is of no help to the petitioner in the instant case. It was held that non-speaking award could not be set aside merely on the ground that it is non-speaking. Judgment in the case of T. N. Electricity Board (supra) is of no help to the petitioner in the instant case. The said judgment is by bench of two Hon’ble Judgers as against judgment in the case of Raipur Development Authority (supra) by Bench of five Hon’ble Judges. Moreover, even in the case of T. N. Electricity Board (supra), it was not laid down that award under the Act has to be reasoned or speaking one. It was rather observed that if question of arbitrability of the dispute is raised before the Arbitrator, then such dispute should be decided by reasoned order because it goes to the root of jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Even in this judgment, it was, however, not laid down that adjudication of the dispute under the Act had to be by speaking or reasoned award. On the other hand, this judgment referred to Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (new Act) which specifically provides that the Arbitral award shall state the reasons, with some exceptions. However, under the Act of 1940, there was no such requirement. In the case of T. N. Electricity Board (supra) also, no such requirement has been laid down. Accordingly the sole contention raised by counsel for the petitioner to assail impugned award of the Umpire has to be negatived being completely devoid of substance. No other contention has been raised to challenge the impugned award of the Umpire. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned judgments of the Courts below do not suffer from any irregularity, illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed being meritless.