IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Arbitration Case No.13 of 2009. Judgment Reserved on 19.10.2009 Date of decision October 26, 2009. Sh. Mohan Singh Shandil ….Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the respondent Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. Dev Darshan Sud, J. This petition has been preferred by the claimant challenging the award made by the learned Arbitrator deciding the claim as also the counter claim filed by both the parties. The facts and the contract which is the subject matter of adjudication are no longer in dispute. It is only the adjudication of the claims and applicability of the Clauses of the contract applicable in support of the respective claims of the parties, which are disputed. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the two claims i.e. claims No. 1 and 2 have been decided together by the Arbitrator which is against the mandate of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) which requires reasons to be given in support of the award. Learned counsel submits that the requirement is mandatory and its violation would attract the provisions of Section 34 of the Act. He further submits that the provisions of Sub clause (vi) of Clause 12 of the Contract have been ignored and the award as such is in conflict with the public policy of India as postulated Section 34 of the Act. Learned senior counsel argued on this aspect of the matter. While disposing of Claim No. 1 the Arbitrator holds that nine items out of 19 items claimed under Claim No. 1 would be decided while adjudicating Claim No. 2. He has detailed these items while disposing of Claim No. 1. When the discussion of evidence on claim No. 2 is considered, I cannot persuade myself to hold that there has been any illegality or violation of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act. The discussion is elaborate. The Arbitrator has referred to each and every document as also the submissions made by the parties. Merely because this Court would come to a different finding on the evidence on record is no ground under Section 3 34 of the Act to interfere with the award. On a combined reading of the reasons given by the Arbitrator under Claims No. 1 and 2, there is nothing which would persuade this Court to hold that the mandatory requirement of giving a speaking award have in any manner been violated. Section 31 does not require that reasons should be of a nature which suits the requirement of a particular party. They have to be relatable and germane to the decision arrived at. On a reading of the award, I am unable to convince myself that the Arbitrator has not given any reason for either accepting or rejecting a particular claim. As discussion is elaborate and makes a reference to each and every document on the record, the contention that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is not supported by any evidence is neither correct nor discernible. The findings arrived at by the Arbitrator cannot be termed to be perverse or based on no evidence at all. This petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. October 26, 2009 (ms). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.