Perusal of Impugned award reveals that the Arbitrator has rejected the claim of applicant/firm for want of extension of period for completion of work for III phase, while the applicant/firm has vehemently submitted that extension of time was recommended by Chief Engineer, Jabalpur, who was the competent authority under the contract to extend the period for completion of any work, which itself amounts to extension of period. Admittedly, the applicant/firm has completed the work of III phase as per the agreement. The dispute is only with regard to extension of period for completion of work of III phase. When the applicant/firm has completed the work of III phase without any interruption from the side of opposite parties, though without extension of period as alleged by the opposite parties, but it would draw adverse presumption against the opposite parties that they were conceded to the request of applicant/firm for extension of period, otherwise they would have stopped the work of III phase.This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).The applicants and the opposite parties entered into a contract under a Contract Agreement No.CEJZ/JHA-05. Since a dispute arose between the parties, under clause 70 of the general conditions of the aforesaid agreement which provides for arbitration, the competent authority-opposite party no.2 appointed one Mr. Baljit Singh as the sole Arbitrator under the terms of the arbitration agreement, who made the final award on 25.02.2010. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that despite repeated reminders to the opposite parties, no substitute Arbitrator is being appointed by them and, therefore, this application has been filed. When the matter was listed on 23.09.2021, the learned counsel for the applicants sought adjournment to address the Court on the issue of maintainability of the application. Learned counsel has thus made her submissions on the issue of maintainability. Application 3B for setting aside the award dated 25.02.2010 is allowed with no order as to cost. The award dated 25.02.2010 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Arbitrator to reconsider all the issues being raised before this Court in the light of terms of contract as well as the issue regarding extension of period for completion of work of III phase and to pass the award afresh, as early as possible. Let the record of Arbitrator.