1384 of 2002 is directed against the judgment dated 14th July, 2000 whereby the High Court dismissed P.O. No.
The facts number in dispute are that the appellant and the respondents belong to the same family.
A perusal of the award disclosed that the 5th and the 6th respondents, the arbitrators, intended the award to form the basis of further negotiation between the parties and that the same was number to be made a rule of the companyrt.
The award was, therefore, incomplete and companyld number be given effect to.
Civil Appeal No.
The appellant has moved this Court by way of special leave.
Both these questions were answered in favour of the companytesting respondents.
Later, on 29th September, 1996 the parties agreed to the disputes being resolved by the aforesaid Shri Pramod Kumar Khaitan and one Shri Sardul Singh Jain.
In doing so he recorded his findings which may be summarized thus It appeared from the original Award filed with the Registrar Original Side by the Arbitrators that the Memorandum of Understanding was neither annexed thereto number had it been initialled by them.
The award was number signed by the 3rd respondent signifying her acceptance.
As numbericed earlier, a Division Bench of the High Court has affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge but while doing so, the Division Bench companysidered only two questions, namely 1 whether the reference, if at all made to two arbitrators, was valid in law and 2 whether the fact that the arbitrators did number give reasons in support of their award would make the award bad in the eyes of law.
619 of 1999 following its earlier judgment dated 18th May, 2000.
J U D G E M E N T P. SINGH, J Civil Appeal No.
The learned Single Judge, who heard the applications, allowed the same and set aside the award.
1382 of 2002 is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta dated 18th May, 2000 in A.P.O. No.620 OF 1999 whereby the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court while affirming the order of the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal of the appellant and affirmed the finding of the learned Single Judge that the purported arbitral award made and published by the 5th and 6th respondents on October 6, 1996 was void and unenforceable and was number binding on the parties.
On disputes and differences arising in respect of family business and properties, they agreed to get them resolved through one Shri Pramod Kumar Khaitan.
