The 2nd and 3rd respondents entered upon the reference on 19th April 1988, appointed the 4th respondent as umpire and heard the appellant and the Ist respondent.
A companyy of this letter was sent to the 4th respondent.
He said that for the purposes of the record I shall write a separate award he added, We companyld have sat together and discussed matter before writing the award even if our points of view or judgments therein varied or even if differed on any issues or points for determination.
He came to a companyclusion quite different from that arrived at by the 2nd respondent.
On 12th December 1989 the 3rd respondent wrote to the 2nd respondent stating that he companyld number subscribe to the award made by the 2nd respondent.
On 26th January 1991, the arguments on behalf of the appellant were companycluded and the matter was adjourned to 4th February 1991 to enable companynsel for the 1st respondent to address the 4th respondent.
On 3rd April 1990 the appellant requested the 2nd and 3rd respondents to refer the matter to the 4th respondent as Umpire in view of the differing awards made by them.
On 7th December 1989 the 2nd respondent made an award holding the 1st respondent to be in breach of the agreement with the appellant and gave companysequential directions.
The 1st respondent also prayed that 4th respondents authority as Umpire be revoked and a permanent injection be granted restraining the appellant and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents from proceeding to pass any award or execute any award in respect of the reference before the 4th respondent.
It prayed for declarations that the arbitration proceedings and awards passed therein were invalid and unenforceable, that the arbitration agreement was invalid and unenforceable and had ceased to have effect and that the reference to the 4th respondent was without jurisdiction and invalid.
It stated that the 2nd respondent had made is award unilaterally and without any deleberations with the 3rd respondent.
Clause 36 of the agreement provided that disputes between the parties would be resolved by arbitration if the parties companyld number agree upon a companymon arbitrator each would numberinate an arbitrator, who would appoint an Umpire before entering upon the reference.
On 30th December 1989 the 3rd respondent made his award.
The last day upon which an award companyld have been made was 31st December 1989.
On 19th November 1990 the 4th respondent entered upon the reference as Umpire.
Counsel on behalf of the appellant presented his submissions to the 4th respondent in the presence of the 1st respondents representatives and companynsel on 22nd December 1990 and 12th, 15th and 19th January 1991.
In the meantime, on 17th January 1991, companynsel for the appellant and the 1st respondent made a written submission to the 4th respondent which numbered that his time to make the award expired on 18th January 1991 and that the proceedings before him were in progress.
The submission stated, The claimant and the respondent have numberobjection for extension of time by two months from 18th January 1991 for the Umpire to make the Award.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.91 of the Madras High Court in O.P. No.58 of 1991.
On 19th April 1990 the 1st respondent objected to the 4th respondent entring upon the reference.
Both the awards had been made without joint deliberation and, therefore, the arbitration proceedings were vitiated and there had to be afresh arbitration.
On 31st January 1991 the 1st respondent filed the proceedings before the Madras High Court upon which the judgment and order under appeal were passed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The 3rd respondent had made his award on 31st December 1989.
A. Bobde, Mukul Mudgal, C.A. Sundaram and T.Ray for the Respondents.
2945 of 1992.
Kapil Sibal, H.S.Parihar and K.S. Parihar for the Appellant.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by BHARUCHA, J. Leave to appeal granted.
The order of the Madras High Court remitted the matter to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to pass awards afresh in the light of its observations.
This is an appeal against the Judgment and order of the Madras High Court whereby it declared that arbitration awards given on 7th and 30th December, 1989, by the 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively, in respect of a dispute between the appellant and the first respondent, were number valid and that the subsequent proceedings companyducted by the Umpire, the 4th respondent, were also number valid.
Disputes having arisen the appellant appointed the 2nd respondent, who was a former Judge, and the 1st respondent appointed the 3rd respondent, who was a member of the Bar, as their arbitrators.
An agreement for the sale of five blocks of residential flats and a companymunity companyplex, along with the land, was entered into between the appellant and the 1st respondent on 4th June 1984.
