JUDGMENT :

K.R. SHRIRAM, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the Arbitration Act), impugning an order dated 1st November 2022 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this court in an arbitration petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Learned Single Judge set aside the award dated 16th June 2022 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in international commercial arbitration proceedings on separate applications filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 and respondent nos. 3 and 5 under Section 31(6) read with Section 32 of the Arbitration Act that the person who signed the notice invoking arbitration and signed the statement of claim on behalf of Claimant, i.e. appellant herein had no valid authority to do so, nevertheless granted liberty to cure the defect.

2. The facts in brief are as under:

Respondent no. 6-Arya Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered in Mumbai under the provisions of Companies Act 1956. Appellant and other respondents are shareholders of respondent no. 6. Respondent no. 6 is, inter-alia, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of iron and steel products.

3. Appellant is a company incorporated under the relevant laws of British Virgin Islands (BVI). Appellant is an investment company. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 (RA Group) and 7 to 11 (PA Group) together with respondent nos. 12 and 13 are promoters of respondent no. 6. It is appellant’s case that in view of a Shareholder’s Agreement dated 25th March 2009, appellant holds 49% shares in respondent no. 6 and the balance is held by respondent nos. 1 to 5 (RA Group) and 7 to 13 (PA Group). Respondent nos. 12 and 13 are closely owned and controlled by RA Group and PA Group, i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 11, respectively.

4. It is appellant’s case that it was asked by other respondents to join as shareholder and to infuse funds in respondent no. 6. Appellant and respondents entered into a Shareholder’s Agreement as well as Share Purchase and Share Subscription Agreement all dated 25th March 2009. Appellant invested about Rs. 80 crores in respondent no. 6. Appellant was made 49% shareholder and the remaining 51% was with respondent nos. 1 to 5 (PA Group) and 7 to 11 (RA Group). It is appellant’s case that as per the Shareholders’ Agreement, it had nominated one Sunil Jain as nominee director on the board of respondent no. 6 and the said Sunil Jain had even attended certain board meetings. Disputes arose between appellant and respondents, i.e. between shareholders of respondent no. 6. Consequently, appellant invoked arbitration proceedings on 30th April 2018 in terms of the Shareholders’ Agreement dated 25th March 2009. The Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three members, namely, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker (Retd.) as Presiding Arbitrator, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma (Retd.) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Shah (Retd.) was constituted. Later on, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker (Retd.) resigned and he was substituted by Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri (Retd.).

5. Right from the beginning, there were objections raised by RA Group, i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 5 on the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal or on the impartiality of the Arbitral Tribunal, etc. All these objections were rejected. In fact on the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Tribunal’s order was challenged in the Bombay High Court before a Single Judge, who dismissed the same. The intra court appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench and the SLP filed also came to be dismissed.

6. Thereafter, pleadings were filed by the parties and the matter proceeded to recording of evidence. Before the evidence was recorded, points of dispute was also framed. Evidence of appellant was being recorded and appellant filed witness affidavit of two persons. Sunil Jain, who was the nominee Director of appellant in respondent no. 6, appeared as CW-1 and was cross-examined by all respondents. His testimony was completed and he h