Common arbitration and narrow section 34 review uphold an award where trade practice is used only as background knowledge.

A common institutional arbitration is permissible where claims against a member and a non-member arise from the same transaction and both are otherwise amenable to arbitration under the exchange bye-laws. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not permit reappreciation of evidence or merits review of a reasoned arbitral finding of liability. References to market practice or general trade knowledge do not, by themselves, amount to reliance on extraneous personal knowledge, provided the tribunal does not decide disputed facts outside the record. The challenge to the award therefore fails on jurisdictional, merits, and alleged misconduct grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a common arbitration could be maintained against a member and a non-member where claims arose from the same transaction and arbitration was available under the Exchange bye-laws in respect of both; (ii) whether the arbitral award could be interfered with on the merits under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; (iii) whether the award was vitiated because the arbitrators relied on personal knowledge instead of the material on record.

Issue (i): Whether a common arbitration could be maintained against a member and a non-member where claims arose from the same transaction and arbitration was available under the Exchange bye-laws in respect of both.

Analysis: The dispute was part of an institutional arbitration under the Exchange bye-laws. The claim against both respondents arose out of the same transaction and the Exchange had permitted a common reference. The existence of different procedural mechanisms for disputes involving a member and a non-member, and for disputes between members, did not by itself bar a joint arbitration where each party was otherwise amenable to arbitration and the claim was common.

Conclusion: A common arbitration was permissible, and the objection to jurisdiction on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitral award could be interfered with on the merits under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The scope of interference under section 34 is limited. The court does not reappreciate evidence or sit in appeal over factual findings. The tribunal had accepted the claimant's version on the transaction and had returned a reasoned finding of liability against both respondents.

Conclusion: The award could not be interfered with on merits under section 34.

Issue (iii): Whether the award was vitiated because the arbitrators relied on personal knowledge instead of the material on record.

Analysis: The reference to market practice did not amount to deciding the dispute on extraneous personal knowledge of facts. An arbitral tribunal may rely on general trade knowledge and accepted commercial practice, while it cannot decide on facts outside the record.

Conclusion: The award was not vitiated on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the arbitral award failed on all material grounds, and the High Court's refusal to interfere was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a common claim arises from the same transaction and each respondent is independently subject to arbitration, a joint institutional arbitration is permissible, and an arbitral award cannot be disturbed under section 34 by reappreciating evidence or by treating references to general trade practice as personal knowledge of disputed facts.

---