Koshy, J.

For procedural violation, can an arbitral award be set aside under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act’) and whether court has power to remit back the award to the same arbitrator or any other arbitrator vis-à-vis or dehors the power under Sec. 34(4) of the Act are some of the important questions discussed in this judgment.

2. Appellant and first respondent in this case are partnership firms engaged in the business of mining of china clay. Their mines are contiguously situated with a common boundary, running in the north-south direction. They have jointly secured an order for supply of china clay to M/s. English Indian Clays Limited. Since the appellant firm did not get sales-tax registration certificate, the two firms agreed that mining can be started from the respondent’s firm. Mining was started from first respondent’s firm on 23-11-1995. On 23-11-1995, appellant firm also got sales-tax registration and joined the dispatch of clay. Thereafter, some dispute arose between them and on 1-6-1998, the Managing Partner of both firms decided to refer the dispute for adjudication of Shri K.K. Abdul Aziz, second respondent, who is to act as the sole arbitrator. The reference is as follows:

“(i) A dispute has arisen between Messrs. Sulaikha Clay Mines (SCM) and Messrs Alpha Clays (AC) on the question of the quantum of saleable china clay to be compensated by AC from their mines to SCM in lieu of the quantum of china clay AC has availed in the past from the mines of SCM in the process of their joint working operations.

(ii) SCM’s contention is that the compensation made by AC to SCM is not complete while AC’s contention is that the compensation made is in excess of the quantity due to SCM and this should be given back to AC by SCM.

(iii) Having failed to come to an agreement in this dispute by mutual discussions SCM and AC have jointly agreed to refer this dispute for adjudication to Sri.K.K.Abdul Aziz who will act as the sole arbitrator. It is also agreed by both SCM and AC that the award of the sole arbitrator shall be accepted by both parties as final and will be implemented within a period of three months of the award (subject to fair weather conditions.)

(iv) Sri.K.K. Abdul Aziz has given his consent to accept the appointment and to arbitrate the matter without any remuneration.

(v) Hence, Sri.K.K.Abdul Aziz is hereby appointed as the sole arbitrator with a request to enter on arbitration and adjudicate the dispute contained in para 2 above.”

The sole arbitrator entered on the reference. Both parties filed their respective claims and, finally, second respondent made his award on 26-9-1998. Award was challenged by the respondent on several grounds and petition was filed under Sec. 34 of the Act to set aside the award. All the contentions were considered by the District Court in detail. The contention raised by the respondent that the arbitration agreement is not valid in law was repelled by the District Court. The District Court also found that subject-matter of the dispute is capable of settlement through arbitration and arbitrator did not go beyond the scope of arbitration clause. However, the District Court found that the procedure, as contemplated in the Act, was not complied with and the proceedings conducted by the second respondent was in violation of Sec. 18 of the Act. There is also violation of mandatory provisions of Sec. 24(3) of the Act and the award is liable to be set aside under Sec. 34(2) (a) & (b) of the Act.

3. Since procedural irregularities are highlighted, we will now consider the procedure adopted by the arbitrator in this matter. Arbitrator was examined as PW2. His proceedings file was produced as Exts.B1 and B2. It shows that arbitrator received the appointment order on 5-6-1998 and he informed the parties over the phone to send their statements of facts. Statements of facts furnished by the respective parties were given to the opposite part