9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or their award. Apart from these two grounds, there were other grounds also on which the learned Single Judge had held the award to be void and ineffective. Those questions have not at all been considered by the appellate Bench and, therefore, it was only appropriate that the matters be sent back to the High Court for its decision on those questions. - CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1382 AND 1384 OF 2002 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2003 - N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ. K. Parasaran, Kailash Vasdev, Manoj Saxena, Pravir Choudhary, P.R. Tiwary, Anil Agarwal, S. Singhvi, K.V. Vijayakumar, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Raj Singh Rana, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Mrs. Sumita Mukherjee and Ms. Twinkle Sharma for the Appearing Parties. JUDGMENT B.P. Singh, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion by two arbitrators was not permissible under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as it prohibited Arbitral Tribunal consisting of even number of members. Several other grounds were urged in support of the applications for setting aside the award. The learned Single Judge, who heard the applications, allowed the same and set aside the award. In doing so he recorded his findings which may be summarized thus : 1.It appeared from the original Award filed with the Registrar (Original side) by the Arbitrators that the Memorandum of Understanding was neither annexed thereto nor had it been initialled by them. The award was therefore, incomplete and could not be given effect to. 2.The award was not signed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aph 13 of the award made it abundantly clear that the arbitrators treated the same as "our award". On all these grounds the learned Single Judge set aside the award and allowed the applications filed by the first and the second respondents. As noticed earlier, a Division Bench of the High Court has affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge but while doing so, the Division Bench considered only two questions, namely - (1) whether the reference, if at all made to two arbitrators, was valid in law; and (2) whether the fact that the arbitrators did not give reasons in support of their award would make the award bad in the eyes of law. Both these questions were answered in favour of the contesting respondents. The appellant has moved th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted by Mr. K. Parasaran and Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents, that the appellate Bench of the High Court has considered only two of the grounds on which the learned Single Judge set aside the award, namely - the ground pertaining to the objection raised on the basis of section 10 of the Act, and the ground pertaining to failure of the arbitrators to record reasons for their award. Apart from these two grounds, there were other grounds also on which the learned Single Judge had held the award to be void and ineffective. Those questions have not at all been considered by the appellate Bench and, therefore, it was only appropriate that the matters be sent back to the High Court for its decision on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
