1. The Petitioners have challenged Award dated 20 February 2010/6 October 2010 passed by Respondent No.2’s Sub-Committee being an Arbitral Tribunal, thereby ordered in the following terms against the Petitioners:

“M/s. Empire Estate (M/s. Rumanek Estate Pvt. Ltd.) A/c. New Empire Cinema, Mumbai should pay a sum of Rs.16,66,964.86 to M/s. Pushpam Enterprises, Mumbai, being the balance dues within 15 days on intimation failing which M/s. Empire Estate (M/s. Rumanek Estate Pvt. Ltd. ) A/c. New Empire Cinema, Mumbai shall be declared as Defaulter.”

2. Some time in the year 1997, one Roosi K. Modi advanced a loan of Rs.20,00,000/(Rupees twenty lacs) on interest to Respondent No. 1 for renovation of New Empire Cinema. On 11 January 2002, a request was made to waive the interest. The same was acceded to. It was not paid. On 9 February 2006 letter was sent to Respondent No.1 to repay the amount. There was no response. Therefore, a complaint was filed with Respondent No.2 for a sum of Rs.16,86,837/on 17 August 2006. Respondent No.2 is an Association having object to promote, aid, help and encourage and develop in all possible ways the trade of exhibiting motion pictures. Respondent No.2 therefore called upon the Petitioners to settle the dispute within 15 days failing which they would refer the mater to the Dispute Committee for adjudication, based upon their dispute resolution Sub-Committee rules. Petitioner No.2 pointed out to Respondent No.2 that an amount of Rs.19,872.80 pertaining to distributor’s dues against the exhibition which was payable to Respondent No.1 and the same had been finally settled on 28 August 2006. It was also pointed out that other claims of Respondent No.1 did not pertain to distributor’s share of money. Respondent No.1, though accepted the same, still insisted that the other claims need to be settled through the arbitration as it was never disputed by Petitioner No.2. Respondent No.2 therefore issued a notice called upon the Petitioners to settle the matter and for that a meeting was held on 13 December 2006. Petitioner No.2’ Advocate, in view of above notice dated 5 December 2006, asserted that they have no jurisdiction or authority to try such complaint under the Rules. As the Advocate was not permitted, Respondent No.2 intimated to Petitioner No.2 that the said letter would be placed before the Committee. By a letter dated 11 December 2006, by Roosi K. Modi to Respondent No.2, informed about an outstanding amount of Rs. 20 lacs due from Respondent No.1.

3. It was insisted that Respondent No.2 is empowered to decide the complaint by further stating that Petitioners 1 and 2 were one and the same. A request was made by letter dated 6 August 2007 to Respondent No.2 to hear both the complaints together. On 7 August 2007, a meeting of Sub Committee was held. By letter dated 29 August 2007, it was recorded that the amount would be paid directly to Roosi K. Modi by Petitioners 1 and 2. Respondent No.1 also addressed a letter to Respondent No.2 to withdraw the complaint against the Petitioners. The similar letter was sent also by Roosi Modi to Respondent No.2. On 19 April. 2008 Mr. Burjor Cooper admitted to the partnership of Petitioner No.1 and Roosi K. Modi retired as a partner. On 18 August 2008, a request letter by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2 to restore the complaint dated 17 August 2006 and a reference was made about a Summary Suit No.2281 of 2008 filed by the said Roosi K. Modi in Bombay High Court.

4. Respondent No.2 called upon the parties to submit the relevant papers. Roosi K. Modi addressed a letter directly to Respondent No.2 objecting to the adjudicating of the amount. The intimation was sent on 16 October 2008, by the Sub Committee’s meeting on 7 November 2008.

5. On 1 December 2008, a meeting took place and the Sub Committee refused to reopen the complaint by further recording that a transaction between Respondent No.1 and Petitioner No.1 was a loan transaction and not connected with the