JUDGMENT :

Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is, as to whether the petitioners are justified in claiming that the impugned award passed by the learned arbitrator deserves to be set aside, only on the ground that the respondent unilaterally appointed the learned arbitrator. The other issues that arise for consideration are, as to whether such a ground can be raised in this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without expressly having raised the same before the learned arbitrator and as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be held that the appointment of the learned arbitrator was hit by Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the said Act.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioners received a notice dated 17/3/2021, for recall of loan from the Advocate of the respondent. By the said notice, the loan agreement was also terminated and a sole arbitrator was appointed. The petitioners claimed that the agreement in question was itself non-existent and, in that