1. Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. O.P. Bhati, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Senapati, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the judgment dated 30.11.2012 passed in Misc. (ARB) Case No. 501/2003 by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati rejecting the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the present appellants.

3. The appellants are the respondents/counter claimants in Arbitration Case No. 2/2002 before the arbitral Tribunal of the sole arbitrator, Justice R.K. Manisana Singh, retired Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court and the present respondents are the claimants in the said arbitration

4. The facts of the case in brief are that the present parties to the appeal are partners of the partnership firm, namely, M/s Rajkamal & Co. having its registration under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Acts, 1932. The said firm carrying on business was reconstituted w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the partners are governed by the terms stipulated in the partnership deed dated 01.01.1996. During the subsistence of the said partnership business, the respondents No. 1 and 3 raised the dispute as to the management of the business of Hotel Rajmahal, a unit of the firm.

5. In order to resolve such dispute, 10 (ten) partners out of 17 numbers of total partners issued notice on 23.05.2001 to the other partners to propose names of Arbitrators by invoking Clause 11 of the partnership deed which is reproduced herein-below:-

“(11) ARBITRATION:

That all the disputes relating to this Partnership business between the partners or their representatives, if cannot be settled mutually, the same shall be referred to Arbitration and entire proceeding thereof shall be governed as per provisions of the Arbitration Act.”

6. As alleged, there was no response from the rest of the partners (appellants herein) in appointing their respective arbitrators following which Arbitration petition No. 22/2001 was filed by the respondents herein before this court under Section 11(5) of the Act and vide order dated 28.02.2002 passed by the then Chief Justice of this Court, Justice R.K. Manisana Singh, retired Chief Justice was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to enter into the disputed claims and counter claims. While passing the said order it was observed that the dispute was a family dispute arising out of partnership between the family members.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that Shri Kamal Chand Jain (Sethia), the father of the appellants/counter claimants No. 1 and 2 and the ‘Karta’ of the appellant/counter claimant No. 3, Sri Badarmal Sethia, the father of claimant/respondent No. 1 and the ‘Karta’ of the claimant/respondent No. 4 and Sri Narendra Kumar Sethia, the claimant/respondent No. 3 are three brothers. Dispute arose amongst the said three brothers. The said claimant/ respondent No. 3 (Narendra Kumar Sethia) and the ‘Karta’ of the claimant/respondent No. 4 (Badarmal Sethia) wrote two letters dated 22.11.1999 and 29.11.1999 respectively referring the family dispute amongst the said three brothers in order to fix their separate shares in the assets of the family properties and for separate allotment of the shares to the Arbitrators, namely, Sri Jethmal Sethia, Sri Parasmal Lunawat and Sri Dharamchand Betala. The said two letters reflect the dispute amongst the said three brothers. It is also apparent from the letters dated 22.11.1999 and 29.11.1999 that before initiation of the arbitral proceeding, certain pre-conditions were imposed by the said writers of the letters. However, no such documentary piece of evidence is on record to show participation in the said arbitral proceeding or consent of Sri Kamal Chand Jain.

8. The respondents