An Arbitrator must conclusively resolve all disputes; failure to do so constitutes misconduct, justifying remand for a fresh award rather than outright annulment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal under Section 37 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is directed against judgment dated 16.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Srinagar, whereby petition filed by the respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for setting aside award dated 14.11.2019 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, has been allowed and the Arbitration award has been set aside.

2. Briefly stated, the facts emerging from the record of the case are that the appellant had filed a petition seeking appointment of an Arbitrator before this Court and vide order dated 04.11.2013, the petition was allowed and Shri Rashid Ahmad Lone, retired District & Sessions Judge, was appointed as Arbitrator to arbitrate between the appellant and the respondents relating to the disputes involved in the petition and to file the award within three months.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the learned Arbitrator entered into reference and thereafter proceeded to pass the award dated 04.11.2019, which came to be challenged by the respondents by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Srinagar, who, vide the impugned judgment, held that the award of the Arbitral Tribunal is patently illegal and against the public policy of India law, inasmuch as the learned Arbitrator has left the main disputes between the parties unsettled. Accordingly, the Arbitration award has been set aside.

4. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Srinagar, on the grounds that it was not open to the court below to interfere in the reasoned award as the scope of interference in such an award is very limited. It has been further contended that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is speaking and well-reasoned, as such, there was no scope of interference by the court below. It has also been contended that the learned Arbitrator has settled all the issues between the parties and has asked them to appoint some Chartered Accountant and valuer to resolve the issues and that the same does not mean that he has not settled the issues.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. Before proceeding to decide the merits of this appeal, it would be apt to refer to the background facts which led to the filing of this appeal.

7. As already stated, the Arbitrator was appointed at the instance of the appellant who filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking appointment of the Arbitrator before this Court. After appointment of the Arbitrator, the parties filed their pleadings before the learned Arbitrator, who, after going through the pleadings, identified the following issues:-

Issues raised by appellant :-

1. That the parties are joint owners in possession of different immovable properties comprising land and houses at different places.

2. That the land measuring 90 Kanals and 14 ½ Marlas situated at Khurhama, Ganderbal after compromise made in between the parties was divided in three equal shares in between them by Munsiff, Ganderbal through competent revenue authorities after leaving 14 ft. wide common road from one side of the land.

3. That land measuring 59 Kanals & ½ Marlas comprised under various Khasra Nos. along with three residential houses need to be partitioned by metes and bonds.

4. That the flat at Nizam-ud-din, New Delhi is in exclusive ownership and possession of the petitioner.

5. That the parties are running partnership trade and business as exports of Handicrafts & shawls under the name and style of Bhat Shawls and Pashmina Cottage Industry with Head Office at 2nd Floor, Haza Commercial Complex, Residency Road, Srinagar. The respondents are not rendering the accounts of the firm and as such are bent upon to tamper the accounts.

Issues raised by the respondent