BAL KISHAN Vs. PANNA LAL SUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question that arises for determination in the present petition is whether the arbitrator to whom private reference is made by a written agreement is amenable to the jurisdiction of this court under Arrticle 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are real brothers, Res- pondent No. 1 is cousin brother of the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 is son-in-law of Atma Ram who is petitioner's uncle.

(3.) The petitioner and his brothers, respondents 3 & 4 were doing business in partnership with respondent No. 2 under the name and style of 'Bags and Cartons'. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 were also carrying on business of Pioneer Paper Projects. Disputes having arisen between the petitioner and respondents 2, 3 and 4, they entered into two agreements to refer the disputes to the sole arbitration of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 gave one award dated 15th November, 1968, in respect of and in connection with both the arbitration agreements. It is admitted by the petitioner in the rejoinder dated 28th October, 1969 which he filed in reply to counter-affidavit dated 20th September, 1969, that the petitioner as well as other parties to the arbitration agreement were notified about the making of the award and signed copies of the award were also given on the same date. The petitioner's allegation, however is that in spite of his approaching respondent No. 1 to get the entire award implemented by respondents be has been put off on one excuse or other and only part of the award has been implemented. It is also alleged that the petitioner requested respondent No. 1, arbitrator to file the award and the arbitration record in court to enable him to take such further act ion thereof as permissible in law. But respondent No. 1 has not acceded to this request. It has also been alleged that the petitioner sent a letter dated 26th May, 1969 to respondent No. 1 asking him to file the award on his behalf but no action has been taken. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 at the instance of respondent No. 2 has refused to carry out his legal obligation which is cast upon him under the proVision of Arbitration Act and the refusal of respondent No. 1 is mala fide and against the legal obligation under the law. It has also been stated that the limitation for the filing of the application under section 17 of the Arbitration in Court has already expired and, therefore, the writ petition is the only remedy available to him A writ in the nature of mandamus is sought directing respondent No. 1 to file in the Delhi High Court the original award and the depositions and documents proved before him including the original arbitration agreements dated 3rd October, 1968 and 2nd November, I968.