( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act ) challenges by way of these objections the Award dated 31st December, 2003, passed by the Sole arbitrator. The arbitrator in question is the maternal grandfather of the petitioner and the respondent, who are sisters and had lost their parents and another sister in an unfortunate accident.

( 2 ) THE award is challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds:-

A. That the writing dated 21st June, 2003 does not constitute an arbitration agreement. (i) that the said writing only contemplates avoidance of any future dispute and does not refer to any existing dispute nor it refers to arbitration.

(II) that in view of the judgment of the Hon ble supreme Court in (1998) 3 SCC 573 and (2004) 1 SCC 372 @ 17 an agreement for avoidance of a dispute is not an arbitration agreement.

B. That the main objection of the petitioner is that even if the writing dated 21st June, 2003 constitutes an arbitration agreement even then the purported award travels beyond the scope of the said agreement. (i) that the document dated 21st June, 2003 contemplated division of the estates left behind by the parents and the deceased sister of the parties and does not make any reference to any other assets.

(II) that the phrase `estate having a clear and definite legal connotation can never be interpreted to include `assets owned by the parties even prior to the death of the person from whom the said parties inherit.

(III) Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the supreme Court in (1991) 2 SCC 299 to contend that estate means `property which a person was entitled to deal with at the time of his/her death.

(IV) that the pre-existing estates of both the petitioner and the respondent prior to the demise of their parents and sister could not possibly be the estate of their late parents and sister and would not fall within the scope of the agreement dated 21st June, 2003.

(V) that the award is based on a misconception recorded by the arbitrator which misinterprets the agreement dated 21st June, 2003 to settle the dispute and differences between Ameeta, the respondent and devika, the petitioner in respect of the partition of their various properties and businesses.

(VI) that since the writing of 21st June, 2003 only related to the undivided assets of the parties late parents and sister s estate, the award is void and unenforceable.

(VII) that the shareholding between the various family companies already stood divided between the parties prior to 21st June, 2003 and could not, therefore, form part of the estate.

C. That the award is tainted by the bias and the misconduct of the arbitrator. (i) that the arbitrator did not disclose the circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality.

(II) that the arbitrator being a Stud partner in a greentree Stud did not disclose this to the petitioner as required under Section 12 of the Act.

(III) that the said partnership in Greentree Stud still continues.

(IV) that this was further evident from the fact that certain assets belonging to Usha Stud Farm were wrongly transferred to the said partnership firm, the Greentree stud.

(V) that these were brought to the notice of the arbitrator, who did not take note of this and did not reveal his personal interest in the said Greentree Stud.

(VI) that the award dated 31st December, 2003 is a case of fabrication, disclosing the mala fides and the misconduct and was sent only under the covering letter of 4th February, 2004 even though on 6th January, 2004 and 9th January, 2004, the petitioner had written to the arbitrator that he was biased and not entitled to make any award and she should be given a copy of the award, if any, made.

(VII) that the award was only sent by a covering letter of 4th February, 2004 demonstrating that it does not bear the date purported to have been put on the award.

D. That in any case the