(1) This is a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge an award dated 1st December, 2006. The learned arbitrator declared that a mortgage deed of Rs. 10,45,000/- and interest thereon is fully satisfied and stood discharged as on 31st March, 1991, directed the original petitioner to reassign and deliver the mortgaged property to the Claimant i.e. Respondent No. 1, admeasuring about 2000 square feet on the second floor and the entire first floor of a building named Simplex House which was part of the mortgaged property, latest by 31st January, 2007. The original petitioner was also directed to return to respondent No. 1 by 31st January, 2007, the original deed of mortgage as also the original deed of transfer of the mortgage and all like documents. The arbitrator also directed the original petitioner to pay respondent No. 1, a sum of Rs. 27,36,351/-with simple interest thereon at eighteen per cent per annum from 1st September, 2000, till payment and compensation at the rate of eighteen per cent per annum on Rs. 1,42,60,046/-, being the value of the said first and second floor premises from 12th April, 2000, being the date of expiry of the notice period given by the first respondent to the original petitioner till reassignment thereof. The original petitioner's counterclaim was dismissed as not pressed.

(2) Respondent No. 1 was the Claimant before the arbitrator. The original petitioner, Naresh Seth, respondent No. 2 Shiv Prakash Seth, original respondent No. 3 Janak Raj Seth and original respondent No. 4, Ramesh Seth were brothers. After this petition was filed, the original petitioner died and his heirs viz. his widow and his minor son were brought on record as petitioners. After the petition was filed, respondent No. 4 Ramesh Seth died and his heirs have been brought on record as respondent Nos. 4(a) to 4(d). Respondent No. 3 Janak Raj Seth died before the award was made. His heirs respondent Nos. 3(a), (b) and (c) were brought on record by the arbitrator in the circumstances which have been challenged by the petitioner. The original petitioner alleged that the learned arbitrator brought them on record without even an application for the same. Respondent No. 5 Seth Industries Private Limited is only the new name of respondent No. 1. I will in the judgment refer to it as respondent No. 1.

(3) A property admeasuring 800 square yards of land was leased in favour of one Chunilal Shah for 999 years who assigned the same to one Sumanben Shah and Shantilal Shah. They, in turn, assigned the lease in favour of respondent No. 2 Shiv Prakash Seth as a Director and for and on behalf of the first respondent. The first respondent paid the consideration for the same and constructed a building thereon.

(4) Respondent No. 1 executed an English mortgage in favour of one Ravi Madan Shah, his wife, their son and daughter as security for a loan availed of by respondent No. 1 from them in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The repayment of the loan was guaranteed by the original petitioner, respondent No. 2 and original respondent No. 3, who were the Directors of the first respondent. Respondent No. 1 was unable to repay the loan although the time for repayment was extended. Ultimately, the mortgagees insisted upon the loan being repaid failing which they threatened to enforce their rights under the mortgage.

(5) :

(a) The original petitioner was in occupation of the premises on the second floor admeasuring 2000 square feet as a Director of the first respondent. At the request of the first respondent, the original petitioner on 28th September, 1984 paid the mortgagees a sum of Rs. 10,45,000/- of which Rs. 45,000/-was towards interest. By a deed of transfer dated 28th September, 1984, the mortgagees transferred the mortgage in favour of the original petitioner. The transfer deed provided that the sum of Rs. 10,45,000/- together with interest at eighteen per cent per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 1