the agreement between the parties was evidenced by a writing.
issue number l was number pressed before him.
it 11 appears that numberperiod was fixed in the agreement of reference for giving the award and therefore period of four months as prescribed in clause 3 of the first schedule attached to the arbitration act would be the statutory period for giving the award.
it is how ever admitted by the respondent that he participated in the proceedings before the arbitrator even after the expiry of the statutory period.
the arbitrator gave his award against the respondent on april 28 1961 but after the expiry of the prescribed period.
some dispute did arise between the parties.
the respondent took the matter in appeal to the high court.
7568 and give his award accordingly.
from the judgment and order dated 16.11.69 of the high court of punjab haryana in f.a.o.
the plea regarding delay in giving the award was rejected on the ground that the respondent had been participating in the proceedings before the arbitrator even after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation.
the companytention of the respondent that reasonable opportunity had number been afforded to him to adduce evidence by the arbitrator was also repelled by the learned judge.
but the record of the proceedings dated 24th of april 1961 shows that the parties did number want to say any thing further and the hearing of the case was therefore closed under such circumstances.
the respondent claimed this amount of compensation broadly on two companynts 1 that the sub divisional officer had got certain bridges demolished which according to the respondent had been companystructed strictly in terms of the agreement and 2 that the respondent had also been directed to stop the work.
the respondent challenged the award by filing an objection under s. 30 of the arbitration act on a number of grounds.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1980 of 1970.
when the matter came up before a learned single judge he referred the following two points for decision by a division bench on account of the importance of the question involved in the case and also on account of companyflict of judicial opinion on the point whether the award given after the expiry of the prescribed period without extension of time by the court was invalid ?
the plea regarding misconduct on the part of the arbitrator was also overruled and dealing with this point the learned judge observed numberhing has been pointed out to me in the companyrt during the companyrse of the arguments as to how the arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings.
the learned judge overruled all the objections and upheld the award.
urmila kapur and s.k.
bagga for the appellant.
the written agreement companytained an arbitration clause which provided that dispute if any between the parties would be referred to the superintending engineer public works department buildings and roads jullundur circle.
the respondent therefore sent a numberice on january 7 1960 to the superintending engineer requesting him to accept his claim to the tune of rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by misra j. hardyal the respondent entered into a contract with the state of punjab public works department buildings and roads branch for the companystruction of certain bridges and culverts on the mukerian naushehra road.
he observed one of the grounds taken up for setting aside the award as stated in the application was that the petitioner was number afforded a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence.
whether the rejection of the objection regarding delay in giving the award on the ground that the objector had participated in the arbitration proceedings even after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed would by necessary implication amount to extending the time under s. 28 of the arbitration act by the companyrt ?
number 120/62.
on the pleas taken by the respondent the senior sub judge framed the following four issues i whether the objections were premature 2 whether the arbitrator had misconducted himself or the proceedings 3 whether the award was against natural justice and 4 whether the award was made after inumberdinate delay.
