Arbitrator exceeded the reference by retaining stridhana jewellery after finding it belonged to the respondent.

The arbitrator exceeded the limited reference by allowing the appellants to retain jewellery after finding it was the respondent's stridhana property. The reference required the arbitrator first to decide ownership of the 99 diamonds and one emerald ring; only if the jewellery was not stridhana could it be divided among the seven sharers. Once the arbitrator found the jewellery to be stridhana, that finding exhausted the mandate on that issue, and reliance on the earlier partition arrangement or later handing over could not defeat the respondent's claim. The Supreme Court treated this as a jurisdictional error and upheld the High Court's interference with that part of the award.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitrator exceeded the terms of reference in treating the 99 diamonds and one emerald ring as unavailable for return to the respondent and in permitting the appellants to retain the jewellery.

Analysis: The terms of reference required the arbitrator first to decide whether the jewellery was stridhana property of the respondent. Only if it was found not to be stridhana property could the arbitrator proceed to divide it among the seven sharers. The arbitrator recorded a finding that the jewellery was stridhana property, and that finding exhausted the reference on that point. Reliance on the earlier partition arrangement and the subsequent handing over of the jewellery could not justify refusing the respondent's claim once the property was found to be stridhana. By going further and allowing the appellants to retain the jewellery, the arbitrator travelled beyond the limited mandate conferred by the reference.

Conclusion: The arbitrator committed a jurisdictional error, and the High Court's interference with that part of the award was . The appellants' challenge failed.

---