An arbitrator's previous findings cannot be blindly followed without independent evaluation, leading to procedural irregularities under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

We have heard Mr. Anil Xavier, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. E.M. Murugan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Liju V. Stephen, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The partners of the 4threspondent are at loggerheads and this litigation seem to be a second round of litigation after the award passed in the first reference was set aside. In fact the award passed by the Arbitrator in the earlier proceedings was challenged by both the sides that has resulted in an order being passed underSection 34of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(the Act of 1996) by the Commercial Court at Ernakulam. Thereafter the award holders filed a fresh reference in which an Arbitrator was initially appointed and thereafter he was substituted by an order dated 24thAugust 2022. In the fresh reference, an award was passed in favour of respondents 1 to 3. This award has been challenged in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. The learned Commercial Court refused to interfere with the award on the ground that it is no longer open to a court exercising jurisdiction underSection 34of the Act of 1996 to re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a different finding.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Commercial Court is unreasoned. He submitted that a Court deciding an application for setting aside an arbitral award must indicate even in brief the reasons for not accepting the argument put forth by the present appellant, as a fundamental issue was raised in the said proceedings with regard to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in applying the principles of res judicata in deciding the fresh reference, notwithstanding the fact that earlier award was set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the various portions of the award to show that in the present reference the learned Arbitrator had mechanically applied his mind to the facts and arrived at a finding based on the findings in the earlier proceedings, that was set aside by the learned Commercial Court and the appeal preferred by the award holders in the instant case was not pursued, thereby giving rise to the fresh reference.

5. The learned counsel for the award holders has submitted that the procedure laid down under Section 19 of the Act of 1996 has been scrupulously followed. The learned counsel has referred to the order passed by the learned Arbitrator on 16^th December 2022 in connection with the I.A. filed by the present respondents. The learned counsel for the award holders has submitted that the chronology of events forming part of the proceedings would show that, on 3^rd March 2023, the parties agreed to the procedure based on which the Arbitral Tribunal has proceeded and therefore it is not open for the present appellant to assail the said award on the ground of any procedural irregularities or defects. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the procedure as agreed and emanate from the order forming part of the award and claimed to have been decided on 3^rd March 2023 is reproduced as follows:

“03.03.2023:- Both sides represented. Additional issues raised on the counter claim. Copy served on both sides. Both sides conceded that a full-fledged argument can be held covering all the issues involved, particularly additional issues 19 to 22 and in case if these additional issues are found against the respondent, a final award can be passed whereas if those additional issues are found in favour of the respondent, the question of further evidence may arise and further proceedings can be had. This is recorded. R