RAJ KUMAR DUA Vs. NARESH ADHLAKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred by the two petitioners, who are brothers, under Sections 14 & 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) for termination of mandate of respondent No. 1, arbitrator. The respondent No. 2 is the sister of the two petitioners and the wife of respondent No. 1, the arbitrator. Respondent No. 3 is also a brother of the petitioners and brother-in-law of respondent No. 1.

(2.) A deed of family settlement was arrived at on 15.03.2005 between the two petitioners, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2. By this deed of settlement the parties, namely, the three brothers and the sister decided upon the manner of distribution of the properties left by their parents. The said deed, which is a registered instrument, inter alia, provided that "In the event of any dispute between them the same shall be in discretion power of the Sole Arbitrator Shri Naresh Adlakha S/o Shri R.S. Adlakha R/o H-I-133, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-110024 appointed by the all the legal heirs of the deceased (late Smt. Sudesh Dua) Shri Ashok Dua, Shri Raj Kumar, Shri Anil Dua and Smt. Sividha Adlakh by virtue of undertaking, General Power of Attorney and Special Power of Attorney. Whose decision shall be final and binding upon all the legal heirs of the deceased (Late Smt. Sudesh Dua) Shri Ashok Dua, Shri Raj Kumar Dua, Shri Anil Dua and Smt. Suvidha Adlakha and their legal heirs and none of them would be competent/entitled to change/alter/challenge if anywhere what so ever."

(3.) With regard to the implementation of the settlement as contained in the said deed, disputes arose between the parties. The petitioner No. 1 herein preferred a civil suit bearing No. 1071/2006 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Delhi for declaration and injunction against his other two brothers and sister. An application under Section 8 of the Act read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was preferred by Smt. Suvidha Adlakha, respondent No. 2 and Sh. Ashok Dua, respondent No. 3 herein, invoking the aforesaid arbitration agreement. Consequently, that application was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2008 and the disputes were referred to the arbitration of respondent No. 1 herein. The Court left the question of impartiality or bias to be decided by the arbitrator himself. Therefore court did not interfere at that stage to decide about such impartiality/bias of the arbitrator. The court also declined to appoint a new arbitrator in place of respondent No. 1.