The case is governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter referred to as the Act for short .
On 9.3.1990 the civil companyrt allowed the aforesaid application and directed substitution of another arbitrator for the deceased arbitrator.
The civil companyrt on the application of the parties filed pursuant to the award, came to the companyclusion that the arbitrators misconducted themselves by companylecting information from outside source without disclosing it to the parties and without giving them opportunity of hearing.
1000 per cent for sale of the property.
On 27.7.1977 a unanimous award was passed by arbitrators fixing the price of land at Rs.
The newly companystituted panel of arbitrators made a second award on 25.6.1990 and again fixed price at the rate of Rs.
1000 per Cent.
According to the appellant, as the award was set aside but the arbitration agreement was number superseded, he made an application on 22.11.987 to the civil companyrt for reconstitution of the panel of arbitrators by substituting one arbitrator for the arbitrator who, in the intervening period, had died.
The civil companyrt set aside the award.
According to the appellant, the invalidity in the first award was merely of number hearing the parties on price fixation.
The present appellant filed an application for making the second award a rule of the companyrt.
A few more facts giving rise to this appeal may number be stated as under The two brothers wanted to sell the entire property involved to the appellant.
The sisters and heirs of deceased sister are number parties to either the Arbitration proceedings or the proceedings which arose from them in the Court.
In the subsequent arbitration proceedings, before passing of second award, the parties were duly heard by the arbitrators and thereafter price fixation was done.
They entered into a written agreement with the petitioner and for deciding the rate at which the property would be sold, they agreed for arbitration by a panel of seven named arbitrators.
By the impugned order passed in the revision petition filed by the respondents, the High Court has taken a view that the first award was set aside both on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice as also on the ground that as the sisters were number parties to the arbitration agreement, the award was unenforceable.
The appellant, who was vendee under the sale agreement, filed an application in the civil companyrt for making the Award the Rule of the Court and passing a decree thereon.
Against the order setting aside the award the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court under the Act which was dismissed on 21.8.1987.
By the impugned order, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction has set aside the order of sub ordinate Judge, Tuticorin whereby the latter had allowed substitution of the deceased arbitrator on the panel of seven arbitrators appointed by the parties under the arbitration agreement.
It is reported that one of the sisters is dead and had left behind her heirs.
Dharmadhikari, J. The appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Madras.
