JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J.:---This is a petition under section 30 read with section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the award passed by the sole arbitrator Mr. Suresh Deorah.

2.Briefly stated, the facts and circumstances leading to this petition are as follows:

The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are partnership firms registered under the Partnership Act, 1932. The respondent is also a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act. The petitioners are manufacturers of iron and steel goods. The petitioners import raw materials for manufacturing of iron and steel goods. During 1979-1980 the petitioners had obtained import licence from the Import Control Authorities for the import of raw materials. For importing raw materials, the petitioners had engaged the services of the respondent and for that purpose the petitioners had issued a letter of authority to the respondent. During the period 1979-1980 the petitioners imported through the respondent iron and steel goods worth Rs. 38.30 lakhs of C.I.F. value and Rs. 39.50 lakhs of C.I.F. value. In 1982 the petitioners filed refund applications before the customs authorities for refund of the customs duty. The customs authorities rejected the refund applications as barred by limitation. The petitioners, therefore, approached Calcutta High Court by filing four separate writ petitions claiming refund of Rs. 68.90 lakhs and Rs. 71.00 lakhs, respectively. The petitioners also moved for interim reliefs before the Calcutta High Court and an interim order came to be passed on the application made by the petitioners directing the customs authorities to refund the excess duty realised from the petitioners upon furnishing Bank guarantees in favour of the customs department.

3.On 15th April, 1983 the respondent addressed a letter to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mumbai stating that refund should not be made to the petitioners as the actual import was made by the respondent and not by the petitioners. The petitioners, however, maintained before the customs department that all customs duty, expenses, port charges, etc., had been paid by the petitioners and the respondent were merely acting as a letter of authority holder for and on behalf of the petitioners. On 21st April, 1983 the petitioners and the respondent signed an agreement whereunder the petitioners agreed to assign a sum of Rs. 45,90,000/- to the respondent subject to terms and conditions of the agreement.

4.It appears that again there arose a dispute between the parties on account of implementation of the agreement dated 21st April, 1983. After exchange of few letters the parties agreed to refer the dispute to the sole arbitration of Mr. Suresh Deorah. On 23rd August, 1988 the sole arbitrator made the award which has been described by him as "oral judgment". It is a common ground that pursuant to the award made by the sole arbitrator the petitioners made certain payments towards interest to the respondent against the Bank guarantees executed by the respondent as per the award of the sole arbitrator.

5.On 28th February, 1992 writ petitions filed by the petitioners were allowed by the Calcutta High Court but the said order could not be implemented because of statutory bar incorporated under the Customs Act. It seems that after the writ petitions were disposed of, the respondent through its attorneys called upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 22,50,000/- with interest accrued at the Bank rate. The said letter was followed by a reminder dated 3rd December, 1992 issued by the attorneys of the respondent. On 30th July, 1992 the sole arbitrator wrote a letter to the petitioners advising them to settle the matter amicably. Again on 12th May, 1993 the sole arbitrator wrote a letter to the petitioners seeking an explanation from the petitioners as to why the award was not implemented by them. It may be mentioned at this stage that the original award passed by the sole arbitrator was not written on a stamp paper. The sole

Click Here to Read the rest of this document