IMPORTANT POINT
Appellate Bench should have considered all the grounds on which the award had been set aside by the learned single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-Civil Appeal No. 1382 of 2002 is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta dated 18th May, 2000 in A.P.O. No.620 of 1999 whereby the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court while affirming the order of the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal of the appellant and affirmed the finding of the learned Single Judge that the purported arbitral award made and published by the 5th and 6th respondents on October 6, 1996 was void and unenforceable and was not binding on the parties.

2. Civil Appeal No. 1384 of 2002 is directed against the judgment dated 14th July, 2000 whereby the High Court dismissed A.P.O. No. 619 of 1999 following its earlier judgment dated 18th May, 2000.

3. The facts not in dispute are that the appellant and the respondents belong to the same family. On disputes and differences arising in respect of family business and properties, they agreed to get them resolved through one Shri Pramod Kumar Khaitan. Later, on 29th September, 1996 the parties agreed to the disputes being resolved by the aforesaid Shri Pramod Kumar Khaitan and one Shri Sardul Singh Jain. The parties accordingly submitted their respective claims before the aforesaid two persons and took part in the proceedings which resulted in an award dated 6th October, 1996.

4. The award was challenged by the first and the second respondents who prayed for setting aside of the award. Several grounds were urged in support of the applications, one of them being that the arbitration 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.

5. 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 3rd respondent signifying her acceptance.

3. A perusal of the award disclosed that the 5th and the 6th respondents, the arbitrators, intended the award to form the basis of further negotiation between the parties and that the same was not to be made a rule of the court.

4. The arbitrators in their award did not record reasons nor did they specify the place of arbitration, and hence the award was invalid being contrary to the provisions of section 31 of the Act.

5. The provisions of the award were uncertain, vague and unworkable, in that it purported to record that the third respondent will have no concern with profit and loss of any company owned or controlled by the parties, without specifying which are the companies and/or businesses that are owned and controlled by the parties and by whom. Further the award directs that the guarantee given by the parties in respect of company/business of the other parties, shall be released from financial institutions and banks, it does not specify the companies or the businesses concerned or the financial institutions or the banks. It further directs payment of Rs.375/- in favour of the second respondent without specifying as to who has to pay the said amount.

6. That the provisions of section 30 of the Act do not apply to the award in question. If it was a settlement between the parties, there would have been no occasion for the arbitrators to reject the claim of the parties as they had purported to do by their award. Moreover paragraph 13 of the award made it abundantly clear that the arbitrators treated the same as "our award".

On all these grounds the lear