By this appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘Arbitration Act, 1996’), the appellants seek to challenge the order dated 31st May, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge – 1, Pune by which the learned District Judge allowed the arbitration application filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 by the respondents and has set aside the award dated 21st July, 2007 made by the learned sole arbitrator appointed by the parties to adjudicate upon the dispute that had arisen between the parties. By the said award, the learned sole arbitrator had awarded some of the claims made by the appellants. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal and cross objections as emerge from the pleadings and documents filed by both parties are as under:-

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The Appellants and Respondent Nos.1 to 5 (“the Respondents”) are all members of the Malhotra family of Pune. Appellant No.1 is the father of Appellant Nos. 4 and 7 and Respondent No.1 and the grand-father of Appellant Nos. 6, 9 and 10 and Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5. Appellant No.3 is the brother of Appellant No.1 and is the paternal uncle of the aforesaid persons. The Malhotra family owned, controlled and managed a company known as Weikfield Products Company (I) Private Limited and several other businesses, assets and properties including a partnership firm known as Weikfield Ventures International. Disputes arose within the family. It is the case of the appellants that in order to resolve all the family disputes and differences, the parties appointed one Mr.Rustam S.Gae, an old family friend of over 35 years who was well-known to all the family members and who was the former Law Secretary to the Government of India and who practiced as a Senior Advocate in the Supreme Court of India. It is the case of the appellants that the said arbitration was to be in the nature of an ‘informal’ one, where the parties would make their proposals and claims which, in the absence of agreement between them, would be adjudicated upon by the Learned arbitrator.

3. According to the appellants for the purpose of the arbitration, the appellants and the respondents were initially divided into three groups and thereafter into five groups. Initially Appellant Nos.1 to 3 consisted of Group A, Appellant Nos. 4 to 8 consisted of Group B and the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 consisted of Group C. Thereafter, it was decided that the groups would be reconstituted in the following manner:

4. It is the case of the appellants that all the parties by two separate documents one undertaking and mandate dated 28th October, 2005 and 5th December, 2005 (addendum to undertaking and mandate) agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration and both these documents together constitute the reference to the arbitration between the parties including the lady members of the family.

5. On 10th November, 2005 Group C and D filed their “Statement of Case” in concurrence with Group A and B before the Learned Arbitrator. In the said statement of case, it was prayed that the learned arbitrator shall consider a fair, equitable and amicable division and separation of “the family businesses and assets” as per the proposals set out therein. In paragraph 6(s) of the said statement of case, it was specific claims and proposals relating to certain agricultural land standing in the name of Ankush Malhotra. It is the case of the appellants that the said agricultural lands were purchased from the family funds provided by the family partnership firm/the grand mother / grand aunt, for the benefit of the family. In para 6(t) and (u) of the said statement of case similar proposal and claims were made with regard to agricultural lands standing in the name of Akshay Malhotra (Group C) and Shikha Malhotra, daughter of Mukesh Malhotra (Group C). All these agricultural lands are located in the villages of Bhavadi, Lonikand and Wagholi (for short “the said agricultural land