S. Banerjee, J. - (1.) The parties agree that an order on the principal matter, AP No. 674 of 2009, will govern all the other matters. Indeed, the reasons given by the common arbitrator is recorded in the award which is the subject matter of AP No. 674 of 2009. The awards made in the seven other references rely on the reasoning given in the principal matter.
(2.) The award in the principal matter is challenged on the ground that the arbitrator acted de hors the agreement between the parties. The specific ground that has been urged in these proceedings under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that the arbitrator did not decide the reference in accordance with the terms of the contract. Sec. 28(3) of the Act has been cited in the context.
(3.) The petitioner in each case is the owner of a jute mill. The petitioners say that in exercise of the powers under Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1958 and the Jute and Jute Textile Control Order, 2000 the Jute Commissioner was conferred authority to fix the price, control production of jute textile and regulate stocks of raw jute. The Commissioner issued production control orders to various jute mills for supply of B Twill gunny bags and the mill owners were compulsorily required to purchase raw jute from the Jute Corporation of India in the ratio as prescribed by the Commissioner.;