1 mp t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 352 of 2005 Harinarayan G. Bajaj .. Petitioner versus LKP Services Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents ... Mr.Zal Andhyarujinha i//b M/s.Dhru & Co, for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Kandhar for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 17th April 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.1 was referred for arbitration of the Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with the bye-laws of 2 the National Stock Exchange. Initially, an award was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on 22nd December 2004. That award was challenged by the petitioner herein by filing Arbitration Petition no.401 of 2003. By an order dated 11th March 2004 this Court (Coram D.G. Karnik,J) exercising powers under section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") remitted the award back to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in its order. The order of the Single Judge was challenged by the petitioner herein by filing an appeal bearing no. 444 of 2004 before a Division Bench. While admitting the appeal the Division Bench declined to stay further proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal but directed that the further proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal shall be subject to the final decision of the appeal. The Arbitral Tribunal after remand re-passed the award on 22nd December 2004. That award is impugned in this petition. 3. The Division Bench finally allowed the Appeal no.444 of 2004 against the order of the Single Judge and passed the following order:- ". By consent of parties, the appeal is disposed of in the following terms:- 3 . The order of the learned Single Judge which is impugned in the appeal, is set aside. . Arbitration Petition no.401 of 2003 is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law. All the contentions available to both the sides are kept open to be raised before the learned Single Judge." 4. The order of the Single Judge remitting the award to the Arbitral Tribunal has been set aside by consent of the parties. The proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal, as expressly stated by the Division Bench, were subject to the final result of the appeal. Since the appeal has been allowed and the order remitting the matter back to the Arbitral Tribunal has been set aside. Consequently, the fresh award also needs to be set aside. 5. For these reasons, the Arbitration Petition is allowed and impugned arbitral award is bereby set aside. The Arbitration Petition no.401 of 2003 which has been remitted to the Single Judge by the Division Bench be placed for hearing in due course. 6. Petition disposed of. (D.G. KARNIK, J)