BHARAT KANTILAL DALAL Vs. CHETAN SURENDRA DALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals call in question the correctness of orders dtd. 6/3/2018 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Letters Patent Appeals, namely Appeal No(s). 320 and 372 of 2015. By the aforesaid orders, the High Court has stayed two orders passed by the learned Single Judge dtd. 18/12/2014 passed in chamber summons no.243 of 2014 and chamber summons (L) no.1297 of 2013 in Execution Application (L) No. 1036 of 2013. The relevant facts for deciding these appeals briefly stated are as under.

(2.) The appellant is the son of late Mr. Kantilal Dalal (hereinafter, referred to as 'father') and nephew of late Mr. Girdharilal Dalal (hereinafter, referred to as 'uncle'). The first respondent is the nephew of the appellant, and the son of second respondent. The other respondents are cousins of second respondent. A fracture in the joint family-steeped in business dealings, shared ventures and mutual expectations, led to discord about the accounting and distribution of family funds. To resolve the dispute with his father in relation to the family assets, the appellant sought the intervention of sole arbitrator, Shri Dilip J Thaker. The sole arbitrator passed an arbitral award on 12/7/2010 in favour of the appellant. The father addressed the communication dtd. 23/7/2010 to the arbitrator alleging unfair conduct of arbitral proceedings and signalling his intent to challenge the arbitral award. A caveat was filed by the appellant, but challenge to the arbitral award dtd. 12/7/2010 under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) did not materialise.

(3.) The appellant initiated the execution proceeding for execution of the arbitral award in Dubai, where the father resided. The Court in Dubai, declared the father as judgment debtor. However, the arbitral award remained unsatisfied. The appellant moved the High Court of Singapore which also recognized the arbitral award and held the father liable for US $12,951,078.03, a garnishee notice followed. The father responded to the notice by denying the knowledge of the execution proceeding and claiming residence in London. The uncle filed an affidavit asserting that his brother i.e., the father was not the sole beneficiary of Auro Mira Services Private Limited i.e., the concerned company but both of them were the directors and shareholders of the company. It was averred that corporate separateness insulated him from the repercussions of the arbitral award.