RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. Both these petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 raise identical issues of facts and law and are taken up together for consideration.

2. The challenge is to the arbitral awards both dated 6th November, 2006 of an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the National Stock Exchange of India Byelaws, to the effect that the reference to the Arbitral Tribunal of the claims of each of the petitioners was beyond the period of six months prescribed in Byelaw 3 of Chapter XI. The Arbitral Tribunal thus rejected the reference without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and about the right of the petitioners to re-agitate the matter by filing civil suit and enforcing their rights, if any.

3. The factual controversy is relevant. Each of the petitioners had instituted suits in this court for recovery of monies from the respondent. The applications under Section 8 of the Act came to be filed in the said suits and which were disposed of vide common order dated 25th November, 2005. It was the contention of the respondent who was the defendant in the said suits that under the byelaws, there is arbitration clause and all matters and settlement have to be settled by the forum prescribed therein. The counsel for the petitioners who were the plaintiffs therein gave his no objection to abide by the terms of the arbitration clause as contained in the byelaws, subject to the court fees paid by the petitioners in the suits being refunded in accordance with the provisions of Section 89 of the CPC read with Section 16 of the Court Fees Act. The suits were disposed of with the directions that the petitioners would be entitled to approach the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) under the provisions of the byelaws and as and when such request was received the NSE shall appoint an arbitrator as the petitioners had already filed the suits in the form of claims. Directions were also issued to the NSE to appoint an arbitrator within a month from that date and to the petitioners to approach the NSE by filing statements of claim and copy of the order to enable the NSE to expeditiously comply with the directions.

4. The petitioners thereafter approached the NSE and the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted in accordance with byelaws of the NSE. The respondent filed a reply to the claim/petition of the petitioners and in which it was, inter alia, contended that under byelaws 3 of Chapter XI, all claims, differences or dispute are required to be submitted to arbitration within six months from the date on which the claim, difference or dispute arose or shall be deemed to have arisen; that the said period of six months had elapsed in the present case.

5. The Arbitral Tribunal vide awards aforesaid, inter alia, rejected the contention of the petitioners that the reference to arbitration being under Section 89 of the CPC, the objection on the ground of byelaw aforesaid could not be raised and, inter alia, held that the order aforesaid of this court had expressly provided that the appointment of the arbitrator shall be in accordance with the byelaws and thus the arbitration was under the byelaws and not on reference under Section 89 of the CPC. The tribunal also rejected the contention of the petitioners that the period of limitation could not be curtailed by an agreement and the law of limitation giving three years time to prefer the claim must prevail. It was held that byelaw 3 only gives limited period to enforce the claim by virtue of arbitration through NSE; it in no event curtails the period of limitation prescribed under the general law; a claim to enforce a right is distinct from a claim to make references to arbitration and though the period of limitation cannot be curtailed by agreement but the parties are free to fix any period for making a reference to arbitration by their contract. The plea of the petitioners that such a contract was void owing to Section 28 of the