D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of a decision dated 7th July 1995 passed by the learned single Judge in Matter No. 262 of 1992. The Matter No. 262 of 1992 is related to an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (1940 Act) seeking to set aside the award. The award appears to be a non-speaking one. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with a non-speaking, award is very very limited. Submission on behalf of the appellant:
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant accepted the said settled proposition of law and contended that a non-speaking award is not sacrosanct. It can be interfered with in certain cases and this is one, which comes within the exception. He has raised two points. One with regard to the existence of the dispute or in other words the arbitrability of the alleged disputes raised before the Arbitrator and other was with regard to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in passing the award on the face of the objection taken in the counter-statement filed by the appellant with regard to the no claim certificate (at page 52 of the Paper Book) granted by the claimant-respondent. He had relied on various decisions to support his contention, which we would be referring at appropriate stage. Submission on behalf of the respondent:
(3.) Opposing the said contention the learned counsel for the respondent had sought to distinguish the scope of the no claim certificate at page 52 of the Paper Book. He had also pointed out that the appointment of the Arbitrator was agreed to by the parties and by consent of parties the issues were framed. Therefore, it is no more open to raise the question of arbitrability of the disputes as figured within the issues framed by consent. He has also relied upon series of decisions to which we will be referring at appropriate stage. Issues to be decided:;