M. Jagannadha Rao, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These three Civil Appeals are directed against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in A. Nos. 175-177 of 1988 dated 2-4-98 in Arbitration Petitions 281-283 of 1997. By virtue of this judgment dated 2-4-98, the decision of the learned single Judge in Arbitration Petitions 281-283 of 1997 dated 12-1-1998 was confirmed. The learned single Judge had, by his decision dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under Sections 5 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the 'Act') to the awards and confirmed the three Awards passed by the Arbitrator on 13-11-1997. The learned Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court had appointed a retired Judge of that Court on 13-6-1997 as sole arbitrator and the said arbitrator had passed the three awards on 13-11-1997.
(3.) The facts are as follows: There were three main agreements dated 9-3-94, 9-3-94 and 29-6-1994 under which the appellant agreed to sell Flat Nos. 101-102, 201-202 and 301-302 on first, second and third floors of the proposed building Wembley at, Play ground Road, Vile Parle (East) Bombay to the respondents on the terms contained in the agreements. The consideration was Rs. 76, 72 and 74 lakhs respectively. The possession of the flats was to be handed over along with amenities by 30-10-94. The terms of the contract provided the time-schedule for payments by the purchasers and said time was to be the essence of the contract and it was stated that failure to pay would entail termination of the agreement. The purchasers were to pay 21% interest in case of default. There were various other terms. Clause 7 provided that the power of termination should not be exercised by the appellant unless and until the appellant had given to the purchasers 15 days prior notice in writing of the intention to terminate the agreement and given the purchasers opportunity to set right the breaches, if any committed, within the said period. Clause 39 in each agreement contained an arbitration clause which read as follows: "39. All disputes of differences whatsoever which shall at any time hereafter (whether during the continuance and in force of this Agreement or upon or after it discharges or determination) arise between the parties hereto or their respective successors in title and assigns touching or concerning this Agreement or its interpretation or effect or as to the rights, duties and liabilities of the parties and liabilities of the parties hereto or either of them under or by virtue of this Agreement or otherwise as to any other matter in any way connected with arising out of or in relation to the subject matter of this agreement shall in accordance with the subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force the referred to a single arbitrator if agreed upon by the parties or otherwise to the arbitration of two arbitrators to be appointed by each party to the dispute whose decision in the matters shall be final and binding on the parties hereto." It will have to be noticed that the above clause did not refer to any specific named arbitrator or arbitrators.;