( 1 ) THE award dated 15th November 1989 rendered by the sole arbitrator resolving the disputes pursuant to reference agreement dated 9th October 1989 by the four brothers, is the subject matter of the controversy in these proceedings.

( 2 ) BY award dated 6. 8. 1987, seven sons and one married daughter of late Pt. Kanhaiya Lal Punj were awarded various companies, assets and properties. Subsequent thereto the disputes arose between the four brothers, namely, Virender Prakash Punj, Satya Narain Prakash Punj, Ravinder Prakash Punj and Nilinder Prakash Punj about running of their businesses and the allocation and determination of their respective shares so that they can work independently as far as possible and run their own affairs, also as regards the ownership of the properties. As there could not be any agreement on the terms and conditions for controlling and running the businesses, Reference Agreement dated 9th October 1989 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the agreement) admittedly came to be executed by V. P. Punj (respondent No. 1), S. N. P. Punj (respondent No. 5), R. P. Punj (respondent No. 11) and N. P. Punj (respondent No. 16) referring the disputes for resolution to the sole arbitrator of Sh. S. C. Mathur. The sole arbitrator - S. C. Mathur rendered the award dated 15th November 1989 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the award) distributing/allocating businesses, assets, properties amongst the parties to the agreement.

( 3 ) THE arbitrator S. C. Mathur filed the award alongwith the proceedings, under Sections 14 and 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the Act") and prayed for making the said award rule of the Court. Pursuant thereto, notices under Section 14 of the Act regarding the filing of the award was issued to the parties also requiring the filing of the objections, if any, to the said award within the statutory period. Vide I. A. 2828/90 respondent No. 9 filed objections under Sections 30-33 of the Act. Respondent No. 6 filed objections to the award vide I. A. No. 2967/90. Vide I. As. No. 6984/90 and 6985/90 respondent No. 6 and 9 respectively, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayed for condoning the delay in filing the objections. I. A. No. 5658/90 by Mrs. Arti Singh daughter of respondent No. 5, I. A. No. 5659/90 by M/s. Atna Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and I. A. No. 5660/90 by Dev Automobiles under Sections 30-33 of the Act have been filed by the persons who claim not to be the parties to the arbitration proceedings. These applicants also prayed for leave to file the objections vide I. As. No. 6721/90, 6722/90 and 6723/90 respectively.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed reply/objections to I. As. No. 2967/90 and 2828/90 and contended that the agreement has been by respondents No. 1, 5, 11 and 16 as heads of their families and as such they executed the agreement and adduced evidence before the arbitrator; that the award has been accepted for themselves and their respective family/group and that the award has been acted upon; that the objectors are estopped from objecting to the award; further contending that there is no objection to the clarification on the award in the decree to the extent that arbitrator cannot deal/decide future disputes, the award be made rule of the Court. The alleged misconduct on the part of the arbitrator has been denied. Respondents No. 16 to 18 filed reply to the applications by the above objectors on the lines of respondent No. 1 Respondents No. 11 to 15 also filed reply to the objections against the award, on the same lines as that of respondent No. 1 and respondents No. 16 to 18. Respondent No. 5 filed objections under Sections 30-33 of the Act of the award dated 15th November 1989 vide I. A. No. 1374/94 contending that the clarification on the award in the decree be made to the extent that arbitrator cannot deal/decide the future disputes; that the arbitrator has exceeded the jurisdiction; that only business assets, shares, etc. were REF