The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and fair play in arbitration proceedings, as well as the court's jurisdictional aspect and power to remand the matter.

1. The Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, Arbitration Act). The Petitioner, original borrower, has challenged Award dated 29 December, 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator, thereby awarded claim in favour of the Respondent/original claimant/Lender.

2. The Petitioner had demat account with Motilal Oswal Securities Limited at Buxal, Bihar, which is stated to be sister concern of Respondent with whom the Petitioner entered into a Master Loan Agreement dated 14 December, 2007 for providing loan against the deposit of securities and/or finance for purchase of security facilities. The learned Arbitrator has dealt with the contention revolving around Respondent No.2, while granting the Award in favour of Respondent No.1. Admittedly, Respondent No.2 was not party to the arbitration proceedings as they were not party to the agreement between the parties having arbitration clause. Therefore, there was no question of adjudicating or deciding any issue revolving around and/or related to Respondent No.2 while adjudicating and/or granting any relief for and/or against the Petitioner. The arbitration proceedings, as settled, cannot be initiated and/or proceeded for and/or against the third party like Respondent No.2 in the present case. The learned Arbitrator, however, inspite of the submission so raised and recorded, proceeded without joining Respo0ndent No.2 as party and passed the Award. The Petitioner sought permission and requested for personal hearing in the matter. The learned Arbitrator, however, rejected the said application and proceeded with the matter without giving personal hearing to the Petitioner. There is no procedure agreed and/or pointed out whereby parties have agreed that the Arbitrator need not give personal hearing to the parties and/or parties can waive the personal hearing. Here is the case where the Petitioner has sought opportunity of personal hearing before passing final Award. The procedure, therefore, so adopted is against the principles of natural justice. The learned Arbitrator, in the present case, as noted by order dated 12 November 2009 rejected the application of personal hearing.

3. The reply was filed and so also the rejoinder. New documents were placed on record with the rejoinder. Therefore, an opportunity ought to have been given to the Petitioner to put up his case by giving personal hearing, basically when various documents including periodical statement of transaction in respect of new demat account was disclosed to the Petitioner in their rejoinder only. The periodical demand statements was also foundation for the Award. The supply of statement of new demat account itself was in issue.

4. The learned Arbitrator ought not to have proceeded with the matter without giving full opportunity to the petitioner in every aspects. No oral evidence was led by the claimant. Therefore, the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, without giving opportunity to the Petitioner, including non-providing documents though sought for is clearly in breach of principles of natural justice.

5. As per the Agreement, it was necessary to give three days notice in writing to the borrower specifying the nature of event of default (Clause 5.2). There is nothing on record to show that such notice was given by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner at any point of time. The agreement was executed on 14 December, 2007 on the expired stamp-per. The issue is also with regard to the alleged Power of Attorney. Having statement of 11.06.2007 and signed on 11.10.2007, there is a denial even to the signature before the Notary. The submission of forgery and fabrication was also not dealt with by the Arbitrator. The dispute is also raised about the signature of two witnesses and authorized signatory of Respondent No.2. The document so sought and placed on record by Respondent No.2 who was not party to the arbitration proceedings, ought to have been taken note of by the learned Arb