JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2017 passed in OWP No.1960/2014. 02. Briefly stated, the material facts are that the respondent/petitioner appears to have taken some loan from the appellant-Bank, which was not re-paid. It also appears that some fire incident had taken place in the premises of respondent/petitioner leading to heavy losses. 03. With a view to recover the loan amount, the arbitration procedure prescribed under the Co-operative Societies, 1989 was resorted to by the Bank. It appears from the record that the Additional Registrar Co-operative Societies conducted the arbitration proceedings and by virtue of an award dated 25.03.2014 held the petitioner/respondent herein liable to pay an amount of Rs. 66,58,850.50 along with 14% per annum on the said amount. 04. Being aggrieved of the award, the respondent/appellant herein filed petition bearing OWP No.1960/2014 before the Writ Court, inter alia, challenging that the order impugned was non-speaking. The writ Court on being satisfied that the award impugned was a non-speaking award remanded the matter to the Arbitrator with a direction to conduct proceedings in accordance with the Arbitration Act after framing issues. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant is aggrieved of the judgment and order impugned dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Writ Court on the following grounds:- (a) That the matter ought not to have been remanded, inasmuch as, the respondents had admitted to have taken a loan from the Bank and, therefore, in a case where the liability was admitted, there was no reason for the Court to interfere with the matter. (b) That the direction to conduct proceedings in terms of the Arbitration Act were even otherwise bad, inasmuch as, the Arbiration Act would not apply to the proceedings of Arbitration envisaged in terms of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1989. (c) That there was no need that for a direction to the Arbitrator to frame issues, inasmuch as, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code did not apply and that it was not necessary for the Arbitrator to frame issues necessarily. 06. Heard Learned counsel for the parties. 07. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the remand order was unnecessary, inasmuch as, the liability had been admitted by the respondent/petitioner. 06. Heard Learned counsel for the parties. 07. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the remand order was unnecessary, inasmuch as, the liability had been admitted by the respondent/petitioner. Since a lot depends upon the award passed by the Arbitrator, i.e., Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jammu, it would be fruitful to reproduce the same hereunder:- “Concluding, the respondent No.1 along with respondents No.2 to 4 are jointly and severally held liable to restore an amount of Rs. 66,58,850.50 inclusive of interest as calculated up to 31.01.2012 as well as future interest w.e.f. 1.02.2012 till the same is liquidated @ 14% per annum within three months, failing which the petitioner bank will be at liberty to execute the awarded amount under the provision of J&K Cooperativ Societies Act.” 08. On a perusal of the award impugned, it can clearly be seen that the same is totally a non-speaking award. It does not even say that the amount claimed by the bank had been admitted. Neither does it say that there was an admission with regard to the rate of payment of interest. The award ought to have been a speaking order, giving reasons, before a huge liability of an amount of Rs. 66,58,850.50 could be imposed upon the petitioner/ respondents herein. The argument that the liability had been admitted, therefore, is an argument, which cannot be justified on the face of the award and is accordingly, rejected. 09. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was with regard to the inapplicability of the Arbitration proceedings under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1989. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Jain fairly concedes that the procedure of Arbitration, as prescribed under the 1989 Act and the rules framed thereunder is self contained and, therefore, the direction to conduct Arbitration proceedings in terms of Arbitration Act was strictly speaking not legally correct. 10. We also intend to agree with learned counsel for the parties on the issue that while remanding the matter, the direction to conduct Arbitration proceedings in terms of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997 was not legally justified. To that extent the judgment and order dated 31.08.2017 shall stand modified. It would be open to the Arbitrator to conduct the proceedings in terms of the 1989 Act and the rules framed thereunder. 11. To that extent the judgment and order dated 31.08.2017 shall stand modified. It would be open to the Arbitrator to conduct the proceedings in terms of the 1989 Act and the rules framed thereunder. 11. It was next contended that the direction for framing issues while conducting Arbitration proceedings was also not necessary. What is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant may be correct. While the Arbitrator may be at liberty to adopt its own procedure for conducting the Arbitration proceedings in accordance with the broader parameter laid down in the 1989 Act and the rules frame thereunder, yet in the absence of any prohibition expressly prescribed in the Act and the rules, it would be open to the Arbitrator to even frame issues for purposes of crystallizing the dispute pending before the Arbitrator. We, therefore, modify the judgment and order impugned to the extent that while it may not be necessary for the Arbitrator to necessarily frame issues for adjudication of the dispute, yet the Arbitrator may be at liberty to frame issues, if he deems it necessary. 12. Disposed of accordingly along with connected IA.