F.I. REBELLO, J.:---Petitioner in this petition impugns the award dated 22nd January, 1998. The Award is challenged on several grounds. The principal contention is that the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal was contrary to section 10 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act. (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Arbitration Act, 1996), is contrary to the provisions. Similar points have been raised in various other petitions which came up before me. In that light, on 4th August, 1998 by an order the petitioner was also directed to join the Bombay Stock Exchange as party-respondent in the proceedings as the issue involves the Bombay Stock Exchange who were referring the matters to arbitration based on their Bye-laws. As similar point also arose in the other petitions Counsel appearing in other proceedings were also allowed to intervene and advance arguments in the present petition. By notice dated 4th August, 1998 parties were also informed that the petition would be finally disposed of. In the light of that the following order :-

Admit. Respondents waive service. To be heard forthwith.

2.In the present petition the three contentions raised by the petitioner are as under :-

1. The constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.

2. The petitioner had sought to lead oral evidence in terms of section 24 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The same was denied to him and consequently also the award is liable to be set aside under section 34 of the Act of 1996.

3. The Award is in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play in as much as the petitioner was denied documents and further also was denied the right of oral hearing. It is contended that this would be against the public policy of India and/or denial of a reasonable opportunity to present his case and consequently also the Award is liable to be quashed and set aside.

3.I will first deal with the first contention in respect of which arguments have been advanced by the parties including intervening Counsel. I would formulate the question to be decided as under :-

(a) Whether an Arbitral Tribunal having even number of members constituted under the Bye-laws framed by the Bombay Stock Exchange under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 is in contravention of the provisions of section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1996?

(b) Whether the constitution of such Arbitration Tribunal is saved by section 2 (4) of the Arbitration Act 1996?

(c) Whether such an award is liable to be set aside under section 34 (2) (a) (v) of the Arbitration Act, 1996?

These questions arise thus :-

4.The Bombay Stock Exchange pursuant to the powers conferred under section 9 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Securities Contract Act, is empowered with the previous approval of the Securities Exchange Board of India to make Bye-laws for the regulation and control of contracts. The Bombay Stock Exchange at the commencement of the Securities Contract Act had already framed Bye-laws. In other words they were pre-existing Bye-laws. There is no dispute for the moment as I will point out later on that these Bye-laws though pre-existing are saved under the provisions of the Securities Contracts Act. The Bye-laws also provide for setting disputes between member and member and/or member and non-member. The Bye-laws also provide for the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal and the procedure to be followed by the Arbitral Tribunal. It provides for the number of Arbitrators to be appointed in respect of the dispute, depending on the parties. In the present case we are concerned with the dispute between a member and non-member.

Under the Arbitration Act, 1996 if there is a provision for arbitration provided under any other Act that will be deemed to be an Arbitration Agreement for the purpose of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Ordinarily in every matter pertaining to Arbitration as provided under the A