JAYANT NATH, J.

1. These are two separate objections have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ?Arbitration Act?) by the petitioners seeking to challenge the Award dated 02.08.2016 passed by the learned Arbitrator.

2. OMP (COMM) 382/2016 is filed by the father, namely, Sh. S.K. Beri. The facts of the said case are stated herein. Petitioner No. 1 who is 82 years old is said to be the founder of various business entities. Petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. The petitioners submit that they hold a large stake in the entities which are subject matter of the arbitration proceedings. It is stated by petitioner No. 1 that he has been involved in the business of manufacturing and trading of knives and other cutting tools since 1952. His two sons, namely, Sh. Deepak Beri, respondent No. 1 and Sh. Atul Beri, respondent No. 2 have also joined the petitioner in his business. Initially the business was managed through a partnership firm by the name S.K. Beri & Brothers (“SKB”). Currently, petitioner No. 1 has 50% share and the two sons are partners with 25% share each in the said firm. Thereafter, other entities have been created for the purpose of running the business including DB Engineering Pvt. Ltd., S.K.Beri & Brothers, Benaras Marbles & Granites Ltd., D.B.Engineering Company (partnership firm). Bulk of the business is being run through D.B.Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

3. As some disputes arose between the two sons, the sons entered into an arbitration agreement on 20.01.2016 whereby Sh.Manoj Nagrath was appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the two sons. The two sons thereafter entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 17.02.2016. Separation of the companies, firms and properties as stated therein was agreed upon. The object was that the two brothers would separate their businesses amicably without affecting the running of the family business. It is further stated that two further documents were executed for smooth transaction of the steps proposed in the MOU. A document titled “Regarding Settlement between Deepak Beri and Atul Beri” dated 14.03.2016 was executed by petitioner No. 1 and Mr. Manoj Nagrath. A Deed of Arrangement dated 30.04.2016 was executed by petitioner No. 1 and his two sons.

4. Thereafter on 02.08.2016, the learned Arbitrator pronounced his Award. The learned Arbitrator in his Award noted that all the disputes have been settled in view of the agreements signed and there remains only implementation/execution of the settlement between the two parties. An Award was passed in terms of the MOU dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure A), the Settlement between Petitioner No.1 and Mr.Manoj Nagrath dated 14.03.2016 (Annexure B) and Deed of Arrangement dated 30.04.2016 (Annexure C). In addition, the learned Arbitrator gave various directions to the parties as stated therein. The petitioners have challenged the present Award in OMP (COMM) 382/2016. Mr. Atul Beri, respondent No. 2 has challenged the Award in OMP (COMM) 396/2016.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Mr.Prag P. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in OMP (COMM) 362/2016 submits as follows to challenge the award:-

(i) He submits that the petitioners are not a party to the arbitration proceedings or the Arbitration Agreement and yet directions have been passed against them which bind the petitioners. Reference is made to the directions in the Award whereby all the bank accounts of the family business are to be operated only by signatures of the three persons, namely, petitioner No.1 and his two sons. Earlier no such condition was in force. Hence, petitioner No.1 is now made dependant on his sons for the purpose of utilizing any money from the business he started and still owns.

(ii) Under Section 81 of the Arbitration Act the parties are forbidden from relying upon or introducing evidence in arbitral proceedings relating to the proceedin