MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. ASHA TALWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Counsel for the defendant appellant and Sri P.K. Misra along with Sri K.K. Tiwari learned Counsel for the plaintiff respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the arbitrator by name and is only a formal party. Learned Counsel for the parties agree for final disposal of the appeal at the admission stage on the basis of the affidavits already exchanged between them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal finally.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell giving rise to this appeal are as under :-

(3.) IN the case in hand the admitted position is that the agreement between the parties do contain an arbitration clause which provides for the redressal of dispute through sole arbitrator named therein. The owner herself has invoked the arbitration clause whereupon the Managing Director entered into arbitration and made the award but the award of the arbitrator is not acceptable to the owner. Therefore only, she had preferred objection under Section 34 of the Act. The objections have been allowed and the award has been set aside. The owner wanted the award to be set aside. Sri Shiv Nath Singh learned Counsel for the appellant for the Corporation also states that he also wanted the award to be set aside and he goes to the extent of saying that the award is a nullity. This means that both the parties contend and agree for the setting aside of the award. There­fore, to the extent the award has been set aside by the Court below there is no problem to any of the party.