JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---Appeals admitted. Notice made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, appeals called out and heard.

2. These two appeals are inter-connected and can be conveniently heard and disposed of by the same judgment.

3. Appellant company owned certain premises in Mittal Court at Nariman Point, Mumbai, called "business centre", use of which was made available to the respondent by the agreement dated 27th June, 1994. One of the Clauses of this agreement stipulated that the respondent was to place interest free deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- with the appellant for due performance of the agreement by the respondent. The deposit was to continue in the hands of the appellants "till the client performs the terms of the agreement as above", the client being the respondent and the deposit was to bear no interest at any time whatsoever.

4. The respondent gave notice of prematurely surrendering its rights under the agreement, return of the facilities, including the premises, which they were allowed to use under the agreement and they also asked for return of the deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/-.

5. There is dispute between the parties as to whether the premises were returned in June, 1996 or in December, 1996. The appellant claims that the facilities, and the premises in which they were located, were not returned by the respondents, but were held over for which the appellants were entitled to demand compensation for wrongful use of the facilities beyond the term of the agreement. The respondents claim an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- together with interest till the date of return of the said amount.

6. A petition under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being Arbitration Petition No. 132 of 1998, was moved by the respondent for enforcing the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated June 27, 1994. This Arbitration Petition No. 132 of 1998 was disposed of on consent terms by this Court by an order made on 18th September, 1998. The order said:

"By consent the disputes and differences between the petitioners and the respondents, arising out of the agreement dated 27th June, 1994, entered into between the petitioners and the respondents, is referred to the arbitration of Justice S.M. Jhunjhunuwala former Judge, High Court, Bombay (Presiding Arbitrator), Mr. B.D. Shah, former Director of General Assurance Company (nominated by the petitioners) and Mr. Hemraj Munot Advocate (nominated by the respondents)."

7. Pursuant to the said order, arbitration proceedings were held before the learned arbitrators and the learned arbitrators made an Award on 8th September, 1999 holding that the appellant was liable to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs with interest thereupon, to be calculated @ 16.5% per annum from 20th September, 1996 till the date of return thereof and @ 18% per annum from the date of the Award till payment or realization. The arbitrators also directed payment of costs quantified at Rs. 1,07,312.50 p.

8. This arbitration Award was challenged under section 34 of the Act by Arbitration Petition No. 121 of 2000. During the pendency of the Arbitration Petition, Chamber Summons No. 871 of 2000 was taken out for amendment of the petition by adding certain grounds. This chamber summons came to be dismissed by the order of the learned Single Judge dated June 27, 2000. Appeal No. 683 of 2000 is directed against that order. Arbitration Petition itself was thereafter heard and dismissed by the common order of the learned Single Judge dated June 27, 2000. Appeal No. 684 of 2000 is directed against the order dismissing the arbitration petition.

9. Mr. Diwan, learned Counsel appearing in both the appeals for appellants urged that he challenged the Award by invoking section 34(2)(a)(ii), section 34(2)(b)(i) and (ii). In application, he submitted that the agreement containing the arbitration clause was the agreement dated 26th of June, 1994, which though ex facie, purported to be a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document