1. This appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31st March, 2008 by which the award dated 25th August, 2001 passed by the respondent no.3 in favour of the predecessor in interest of the appellant herein, and against respondents no.1 and 2 was set aside. The appellant is the mother of Sh. Ashwini K. Goenka, the original respondent. The objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had been preferred by respondent no.1 herein, arraying Sh. Aswini Goenka as respondent no.1 , Smt. Kusum Lata Damani W/o Kanti Bhai Damani as respondent no.2 and the Arbitrator Sh. D.P. Jain, who is the father of Smt. Kusum Lata Damani as respondent no.3.

2. The case of respondent no.1 herein, as pleaded in the objection petition has been adequately summarized by the learned Single Judge as follows: -2. According to the averments, the petitioner and second respondent are husband and wife, their marriage was solemnized in 1980. It is alleged that in 1982 the petitioner and his wife came into contact with the first respondent (since deceased), as the later was dealing in non-ferrous metals. The parties joined hands in a business relationship. It is claimed that some time thereafter, the petitioner became aware of the first respondents involvement in criminal cases i.e. FIR No. 151/1998 where he was alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 409/420 IPC. The petitioner further claims that his wife, under the influence of the first respondent and the third respondent registered various complaints against him.

3. It is alleged that on 8.2.2002, the second respondent registered a First Information Report (FIR) against the Petitioner alleging commission of offences under Section 498A. According to the complaint of the second respondent, the relationship had turned hostile for 3-4 years. It is also alleged that the respondent attempted to extract money from the petitioner. It is further alleged that the first respondent later implicated in the petitioner in a false criminal case and registered an FIR 316/2002. The petitioner was taken into custody. He relies on an order dated 11.10.2002 of this Court in W.P.(C) 1026/2002 where the matter was directed to be enquired into by the District and Sessions Judge.

4. It is contended that during the course of police remand, the petitioner was forced to sign 50-60 written papers and 20-25 plain papers which he highlighted in an application to the Court. It is claimed that taking advantage of the said position, the respondents filed an EX. 114/2003 in March 2003 claiming enforcement of the impugned Award said to have to have been made on 25.8.2001.

5. It is contended that the petitioner was not aware of the Award said to have been made on 25.8.2001 and became aware of it only on 16.5.2003 when his counsel had detected the pendency of the execution proceedings. The petitioner was thereafter represented on 12.7.2003 in the execution proceeding, when he learnt that an ex-parte award was made saddling him with liabilities to the tune of Rs. 6.5 crores. It is alleged that no copy of the Award was ever sent to him. 3. The aforesaid award was challenged before the learned Single Judge on account of fraud, and as being based on false and fabricated documents. In para 7, the learned Single Judge summarized the submission of respondent no.1 as follows: -7. The petitioner further relies upon the fact that the impugned Award was supposed to have been made on 25.8.2001 whereas the Execution was filed in March 2003. It is claimed that the real story was that blank signatures were obtained in September 2002 during his police remand. Since the petitioner had filed an application, highlighting the illegality on the part of the police and the respondent, they kept waiting for outcome of the said application; the writ petition was later disposed of on 21.2.2003 as the charge sheet had been filed. It is claimed that the Award surfaced subsequently. A