Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. This petition is against the order dated September 4, 1995 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, vide which it was held that the Award was vague and that the Arbitrator misconducted himself in not considering the counter claims. The learned District Judge, consequently, set aside the Award passed by the Arbitrator and the matter was referred back to the Arbitrator to decide the claims of the parties afresh.
2. A perusal of the Award and the order passed by the District Judge, Karnal, dated September 4, 1994 shows that there were definite claims and counter claims between the parties. Thus, it was imperative for the Arbitrator to clearly state as to which claims were being accepted and which claims were being rejected. A perusal of the Award does not show as to which of the items have been allowed and which items have been rejected. Therefore, the Award is definitely vague. It has been held in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Union of India v. Jain Associates and Anr., 1994(2) PLR 359=1994(1) Arb. LR 494 (SC), as under :
'It is clear from the above facts and legal position that the Arbitrator committed misconduct in non-application of his mind in deciding Claim Nos. 11 and 12. It being a non-speaking Award, it is difficult to find whether he had applied his judicious mind in deciding which of the two claims the respondent would be entitled to, in particular, on the finding of the High Court in this behalf.......'
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Arbitrator need not give reasons in making his Award. He has relied upon Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Govt. of Kerala and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 890=1989(2) Arb. LR 6 (SC).
4. There is clearly no dispute with the proposition that the Award passed by the Arbitrator need not be speaking, but it must be clear from the Award that which claims are being allowed and how the counter claims have been dealt with. A perusal of the Award does not show as to which claims of the petitioner were accepted by the Arbitrator and which claims were rejected. All the counter claims of the respondents also have not been considered. Thus, there is no doubt that the Award of the Arbitrator is absolutely vague.
5. As the Arbitrator had misconducted himself in not specifying as to which claim has been allowed and which claim has been disallowed. I, therefore, order that the order passed by the District Judge, Karnal, in holding that the Arbitrator misconducted himself in not considering the counter claims is absolutely just and fair. Thus, I uphold the order dated September 4, 1995 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, vide which the matter has been remitted back to the Arbitrator.
6. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is dismissed.