( 1. ) PETITIONER is assailing the interlocutory order (P-11) passed by the Arbitrators on 17-8-2002 under Section 16 (2) read with Section 16 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2. ) PETITIONER filed an application (P-8) under Section 16 (2) read with Section 16 (4) of the Act raising the objection to the effect that there is no arbitration agreement in existence, as such the proceedings are not maintainable at the behest of M/s. Klen and Marshal (M and E) Ltd. Another question raised is whether any award can be passed which may be binding on other consortium members. Petitioner submitted that such a plea cannot be precluded merely because arbitrators were appointed or there was participation in the appointment of arbitrator by the parties. The initiation of these proceedings and its continuation is without authority of law and contrary to the contract entered into in pursuance to order dated 29-3-1996. The learned arbitrators have held that they have the jurisdiction as the matter has been decided by this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 232/99; question of jurisdiction was also dealt with in order (P-5) dated 8-3-2001; thereafter much water has flown down in the river Narbada and the Tribunal proceeded to record evidence; one witness was cross-examined and discharged; the other witness was to be examined on affidavit and he was being cross-examined when the presiding arbitrator resigned on an objection raised by the Council for MPEB. Thereafter new presiding arbitrator was appointed and in the meeting dated 13-7-2002, it was agreed that the proceedings from that stage should continue. After lapse of four years, the question of jurisdiction has been raised which apparently with a view to delay the proceedings. The application has been rejected.

( 3. ) SHRI Naman Nagrath, learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that this Court while dealing with Misc. Appeal No. 232/99 has not dealt with the question of jurisdiction of the arbitrators as such the learned arbitrators erred in law in not considering the application filed by the petitioner on merit and have erred in rejecting the same as per order (P-11) which has been impugned in the instant writ petition. This Court as per order (P-5) passed in Misc. Appeal No. 232/99, decided another appeal M. A. No. 2348/99 also. In appeals, orders passed by the arbitrators dated 30-10-98/4-11-98 were questioned and the quashment was sought of the entire proceedings pending before the arbitrators.

( 4. ) THE petitioner M/s. Mohan Aluminium Ltd. , filed an application that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the matter as M/s. Mohan Aluminium Ltd. had never agreed to appoint arbitrators and that the arbitrators were not appointed by the firm, petitioner declined to take part in the arbitration proceedings. The Arbitral Tribunal in the meantime passed an order on dated 2-5-98 to the effect that no further payment be made to any one including M/s. Klen and Marshalls towards any dues against the contract of supply of conductors and during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. Said order passed on 2- 5-98 was modified on 29-6-98. M/s. Mohan Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. preferred Misc. Appeal No. 2348/99; this was the submission raised before this Court that M/s. Klen and Marshalls have no locus standi to file arbitration application and to appoint the arbitrators as they have not supplied even an inch of the said conductors. It was further contended that Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue notices to the members of the consortium as the members of the consortium including M/s. Mohan Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. have not appointed any of the arbitrators. This Court considered the question and held that:-

"20. Now I shall proceed to consider the question of giving notices to the members of the consortium by the Arbitral Tribunal. M/s. Klen and Marshalls are the representative of the consortium and therefore whatever is done by M/s Klen and