The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to remit the matter to the arbitrator for re-examination of specific claims and directions in the Award.

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred from the judgment dated 29.01.2014 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) 1202/2009 and several objections filed by the parties in the form of IAs in respect of an Award dated 28.05.2009.

2. The learned Single Judge by virtue of the impugned judgment has remitted the matter in part to the learned Arbitrator in the following manner:-

“15.8 In these circumstances, I am clearly of the view that insofar as award dated 28.05.2009 allows claim/prayer (a), it will have to be sustained. It is ordered accordingly. However, to the extent the award dated 28.05.2009 declines relief to NRDC with regard to royalty claimed for the period November, 1991 to 07.04.1994, it would have to be set aside. In consonance with the same, the decision taken to deny NRDC’s claim for interest on royalty for the said period and costs, is set aside. Therefore, first part of claim/prayer (b), which is extracted hereinbelow; claim/prayer (c) relating to interest and claim/prayer (d) relating to costs are remitted to the learned arbitrator for re-examination:

“...An Award for a minimum amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of royalty due to the claimant from the respondents for the period when the respondents started commercial production of the licenced product till the date of termination of the Licence Agreement...”

15.9 The necessary consequences of this would be that defendant nos.3’s objections contained in IA No.13663/2010 are dismissed. Resultantly, IA No.13664/2010 has been rendered infructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.

16. The suit, IA No.12111/2009 and IA No.13665/2010 are accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, the registry is directed to dispatch the arbitration record to Mr. Dinesh Dayal, ADJ (Retd.). The learned arbitrator shall render his findings in terms of the directions issued hereinabove based on the record already available with him as expeditiously as possible. In the circumstances, parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.”

3. This case has a chequered history and it would be appropriate to set out some facts. Earlier an award had been made by late Shri S.R. Goel, the learned Arbitrator on 19.03.2001. That became the subject matter of CS (OS) 808A/2001 before a learned Single Judge of this Court. The decision in that matter was rendered on 10.04.2008. The learned Single Judge by virtue of the said decision dated 10.04.2008 had partly set aside the award dated 19.03.2001 and had directed the Arbitrator to render a fresh finding on claim (a) and consequent directions on claim (b) concerning royalty and interest.

4. In the said decision dated 10.04.2008, itself, the said claim (a) and claim (b) were set out as under:-

“(a) That the respondent – firm be directed to furnish the true and correct statement of accounts and the statement of its manufacturing activity from the time of start of its production under the licenced agreement till the respondents continuing, utilizing and exploiting the knowhow.

(b) An award for a minimum amount of Rs.6 lakhs on account of royalty allegedly due to the respondent for the period when latter started commercial production of the licenced product till termination of agreement and further award of damages quantified at Rs.55,000/- per month for the illegal use of manufactured products “SIG Contacts”

5. It is evident that claim (a) related to issuance of a direction to the respondent/appellant herein to furnish the true and correct statement of accounts and statement of its manufacturing activity from the time of start of its production under the licenced agreement till the appellant continued to utilize and exploit knowhow. As regards claim (b) it is evident that it has two parts. The first part pertained to a claim for a minimum amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of royalty allegedly due to the respondent herein for the period when the appellant starte