RUDRAMUNIDEVARU Vs. SHRIMAD MAHARAJ NIRANJAN JAGADGURU DR GANGADHAR RAJAYOGENDRA MAHASWAMIGALU MOORUSAAVIRAMATH HUBLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein is the applicant in Miscellaneous Application no. 66 of 1999. This appeal preferred under Section 37 (l) (b) of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th September, 2000, passed in miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the first Additional District Judge, Dharwad. The Court below by the order under appeal has dismissed Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 1999 filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of the Act.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows.-There is a well-known Veerashaiva Math called Moorusaavira Math at Hubli having large number of devotees in the Veerashaiva community not only in the State of Karnataka but also from outside. Moorusaavira Math is registered as a public trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short, 'the BPT Act' ). The first respondent was the Mathadipathi and sole trustee of the Math as noted in the P. T. Register at the relevant point of time. As noted in the PT register, the succession to the office of the Mathadipathi is by way of appointment of a successor by the existing Mathadipathi in accordance with the opinion of Lingayath Devotees of Hubli and Dharwad. The appellant was appointed as successor by the first respondent with the unanimous consent of Lingayath Devotees of Hubli and Dharwad on 17-10-1991 and a document to that effect was registered on 30th october, 1991. When the matter stood thus, the first respondent sought to cancel the appointment of the appellant as successor by executing a cancellation deed dated 19-10-1995. It appears that that led to differences and disputes between the first respondent and the appellant. However, those differences and disputes between them were settled by intervention of the devotees and well-meaning people of Hubli and dharwad who adore the office of the Mathadipathi in high esteem and reverence. Under the said settlement, the first respondent decided to forgive and forget the past and the appellant was again appointed as successor as per the wish of the devotees thereby, in effect, cancelling the cancellation deed dated 19-10-1995 and affirming the appointment of the appellant as successor as per registered deed dated 30th October, 1991. In that regard, the first respondent executed a deed dated 16-10-1998 and the same was duly registered. When the matter stood thus, the first respondent quite curiously and within a short time executed another cancellation deed dated 2-11-1998 cancelling the appointment of the appellant as the Mathadipathi without consulting and obtaining the consent of the Lingayat devotees of Hubli-Dharwad and without informing the appellant. However, it is the case of the appellant that he was installed as Mathadipathi after performing necessary ceremonies, poojas etc. , on 7th and 8th November, 1998 in pursuance of the deed execvited by the first respondent on 16-10-1998. The cancellation of the appointment of the appellant as Mathadipathi by the first respondent by executing cancellation deed dated 2-11-1998, it is claimed, created chaos and tense feeling amongst the devotees of the math and in the smooth administration of the Math. When the matter stood thus, due to the intervention of the devotees, leaders of the veerashaiva Community and other prominent citizens of Hubli and dharwad, the appellant and the first respondent ultimately agreed to refer the dispute between them to the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of five Arbitrators. In terms of the arbitration agreement, out of five arbitrators, the first respondent was to nominate two Arbitrators, the appellant was to nominate two Arbitrators and the Chief Minister of karnataka was to nominate one Arbitrator and all the Arbitrators were required to be Mathadipathies of different Maths. In terms of the arbitration agreement, the appellant nominated third and fifth respondents as his nominees whereas the first respondent nominated fourth and sixth respondents as his nominees. The Chief Minister of karnataka nominated second respondent as his nominee. The second respondent, the records disclose, assumed the role of the presiding arbitrator of the Arbitral Tribunal.

(3.) THE Arbitral Tribunal held its first sitting on 25th, 26th and 27th december, 1998. It is claimed by the Arbitral Tribunal that the arbitrators on 25th December, 1998 decided on the procedure to be followed in the enquiry and they have decided to examine the appellant and the first respondent separately in order to know the reasons which led to the untoward incident in the precinct of the Math and accordingly it examined them separately and recorded their statements. On 26th and 27th December, 1998, number of citizens and eminent persons of hubli and Dharwad were heard orally and written representations were also received from them. The next sitting of the Arbitral Tribunal was held on 17th, 18th and 19th February, 1999. The third respondent due to his ill-health was not in a position to attend the sitting on those three days. Therefore, he requested the Arbitral Tribunal to fix some other dates for hearing. Nevertheless, sittings were held on 17th, 18th and 19th February, 1999. The fifth respondent protested to the sittings held in the absence of the third respondent. However, the fifth respondent participated in the sittings held on 17th and 18th February, 1999. But, the fifth respondent, since notwithstanding his opposition, the Arbitral tribunal conducted the sittings on 17th and 18th, as a protest, tendered his resignation on 19-2-1999 and he did not participate in the sitting held on 19-2-1999. The Arbitral Tribunal held the next sitting on 22nd and 23rd of March, 1999. The appellant made a request to the arbitrators who attended the sitting on 22nd March, 1999 to give him time in order to facilitate him to nominate another Arbitrator in place of fifth respondent who had tendered resignation, but, his request was not granted and the proceedings were continued. In the meanwhile, since the request of the third respondent to the Arbitral Tribunal to fix some other dates was not acceded and the Arbitral Tribunal proceeded to conduct sittings even in his absence, the third respondent sent a letter dated 25-3-1999 tendering his resignation. On the same day, the appellant by fax sent a message to the Arbitral Tribunal followed by a telegram on 26-3-1999 requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to give him opportunity to appoint another Arbitrator in place of third respondent and requesting the Arbitral Tribunal not to proceed with the enquiry before the Arbitral Tribunal is properly reconstituted in terms of the arbitral agreement.