KAILASH RANI DANG Vs. RAKESH BALA ANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals arise out of the following facts :

(3.) Mr. Arun Jaitley, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has raised several arguments during the course of hearing. He has first pointed out that Subhash Chander, the deceased respondent, had always adopted an indifferent attitude towards the arbitration proceedings inasmuch that though he had knowledge of the proceedings he had deliberately stayed away on the 25th August, 1999 when he, as per his own statement, had not appeared before the Arbitrator but had sent his Manager Mishra instead, though even his alleged appearance was an afterthought. He has also pointed out that Subhash Chander in his objection petition had denied the execution of the family arrangement dated 21st July, 1998 though the execution of the partnership deed which was, in fact, the parent document executed on 7th June, 1995 had not been denied and this too, and the fact that the appellant Kailash Rani though entitled to 50% of the income from the cinema had not received even a penny on that account, was the reason for his recalcitrant attitude. He has pleaded that it is in this background that the matter would have to be examined even with regard to the receipt of a copy of the award by him on 31 st August, 1999, as held by the executing Court or on the 11th of October, 2000 as observed by the High Court. In this connection, Mr. Jaitley has then brought to our notice the statement of Dharam Pal PW1, the postman who deposed that he had visited Alka Cinema on the 30th August, 1999 and after finding Shri Aneja absent he had again visited the next day but the latter had refused to accept the envelope on which he had made an endorsement to that effect and returned the unsealed envelope to the sender. Reliance has also been placed on section 3 of the Act which talks about the receipt of written communications, to support the argument that as the envelope had been addressed to the very address, which was the subject-matter of the business and the partnership, it was deemed to have been served. Mr. Jaitley has also distinguished the judgment of this Court in Tecco Tricky Engineers (supra) and submitted that it had no applicability to the facts of the present matter.