TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (1) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 not binding on the parties. Civil Appeal No. 1384 of 2002 is directed against the judgment dated 14th July, 2000 whereby the High Court dismissed A.P.O. No. 619 of 1999 following its earlier judgment dated 18th May, 2000. The fact not in dispute are that the appellant and the respondents belong to the same family. On disputes and differences arising in respect of family business and properties, they....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the award to form the basis of further negotiation between the parties and that the same was not to be made a rule of the court. 4.The arbitrators in their award did not record reasons nor did they specify the place of arbitration, and hence the award was invalid being contrary to the provisions of section 31 of the Act. 5.The provisions of the award were uncertain, vague and unworkable, in that it purported to record that the third respondent will have no concern with profit and loss of any company owned or controlled by the parties, without specifying which are the companies and/or businesses that are owned and controlled by the parties and by whom. Further the award directs that the guarantee given by the parties in respect of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on and Conciliation Act, 1996, there cannot be an even number of arbitrators and that arbitration by two arbitrators was against the statutory provision of the said Act and, therefore void and invalid. This Court noticed in its order dated 16th January, 2000 that the question being an important question of law which was likely to arise in future cases, it was only appropriate that this issue be decided by a larger Bench of at last three Hon'ble Judges. This Court noticed that earlier a similar question was referred to a larger Bench but the question was not decided since that matter was decided on other grounds. Accordingly the matter was placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for suitable orders, who directed that the matter be heard ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustice. Since there are more grounds available to the respondents to challenge the award, apart from the two grounds, on which the appellate Bench disposed of the appeals before it, it is only appropriate that the Division Bench of the High Court should consider the other grounds also on which the award had been set aside by the learned Single Judge. This is necessary because in the event of our holding in favour of the appellant on the second ground, the Court will be deprived of the view of the High Court on other grounds on which the award was invalidated by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly we dispose of these appeals with the direction that the matters be remitted to the High Court for the Division Bench to consider the other gr....