Judgment : The Petitioner/Guarantor has challenged the impugned Award passed on 11 August 2009 by the sole Arbitrator, thereby directed Respondent No.2, alleged original borrower, and the Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,23,314/-together with further interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.1,10,704/-from 06.07.2008 till payment/realization and Rs.10,000/-towards cost of the arbitration. 2. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 makes statement that they took possession of the vehicle from the Economic Offices Wing (EOW) and Mr. Varun Kapoor, who was admittedly neither the borrower nor the guarantor. The learned Arbitrator has dealt with this aspect in paragraphs 5, 6 and 19 of the impugned Award. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent No.1 submitted that so far as the principal borrower is concerned, there is no challenge to the Award and, therefore, there is no question of interfering with the Award as passed jointly and severally against all. Both these parties have raised various objections even to the execution of the agreement between the parties referring to the vehicle in question. There is clear denial on every aspect. 3. There are positive statements/averments with regard to the forgery and fraud. It is clear from the record and in view of the statement so made that this checkered history shows that someone else and here, as recorded, one Mr. Varun Kapoor, who, as alleged, is in collusion with other person or personnel prepared various documents cheated everyone. The statement is made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and supported by Respondent No.2 that there are as many as 69 cases pending against Mr. Varun Kapoor. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 clarified this and stated in fact such 77 cases are pending as mentioned in the Award itself. 4. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent no.1 also makes statement that they have already sold the vehicle and case is only for the balance amount. 5. In view of this, I am inclined to observe that unless it is settled and/or decided by the Arbitrator that the Petitioner and/or Respondent No.2 were sole and the main party one who executed and/or entered into the agreement in question and, therefore, they are the persons who are liable for this amount, there is no reason to this particular Award against them for execution for the alleged due and payable amount as per the agreement which itself is in dispute. All the original documents are with the Respondents. The basic burden lies upon the disprove the same. Considering the scope and purpose of such commercial agreement, it is necessary for the Arbitrator to adjudicate these issues on merits, after considering the material, as well as, the evidence on record. In the present case, in my view, all these things are missing to hold the Petitioner/Guarantor and the alleged borrower to make these payments as per the disputed agreement. The scope and jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is quite limited in so far as the issue of fraud and forgery, but if the party, who is in possession of original signed documents must discharge the basis proof about validity of the disputed documents/agreement. All these materials have been in their possession and knowledge since its inception. 6. It appears that an opportunity was given to the parties even by the Arbitrator, but I am inclined to observe that the claimant, who has filed the complaint, based upon the agreement required to prove the basic documents and the claim so raised revolving around the same. If they failed to prove the same, there is no question of passing Award against the other parties in such fashion, merely because Respondent No.1 made some denial to the allegation of fraud and forgery. The Award therefore is contrary to the law and record itself and unsustainable. 7. However, considering the facts and circumstances, to give an opportunity, I am inclined to remand the matter back by keeping all points open. Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, in my view, permits the Court to remand the matter for retrial. In the present facts and circumstances, the claim as filed and the defence so raised and so also the issues, are interconnected and interlinked, & just cannot be dissected qua borrower and/or guarantor as contended. Therefore, no option but to remand the matter on all issues. 8. So far as the cost is concerned, the Award is maintained. 9. Resultantly, the following order: (I) Award dated 11 August 2009 is quashed and set aside; (II) The matter is remanded back for retrial. (III) All points are kept open. (IV) The parties to take steps accordingly. (V) The parties are still at liberty to settle the matter. (VI) There shall be no order as to costs.