SANJEEV SARIN Vs. RITA WADHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the real brothers of R-l. They are involved in a dispute regarding division of the estate left by their mother one Madhu Rekha Sarin. They first sought the intervention of some family elders to resolve it but failed. Meanwhile, they are said to have executed an agreement on 28.9.1999 for referring their disputes to the arbitration of two relatives which, though referred, could not be taken to the logical end.

(2.) Petitioners thereafter filed AA 662 /99 for appointment of a retired Judge as an Arbitrator on the basis of one document dated 28.9.1999, claimed by them to be the arbitration agreement. Their sister (R-l) contested this and disputed that this document did not amount to an arbitration agreement. The Designated Authority (learned Single Judge) on this passed order dated 20.10.2000 framing some issues in the matter on taking the view that existence of arbitration agreement was disputed.

(3.) Petitioners filed a review petition (RA 44/2000) against this on the plea that the authority could not embark upon a judicial enquiry on the existence or otherwise of the arbitration agreement in the face of Supreme Court judgments in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Mehul Construction Company, VI (2000) SLT 321=IV (2000) CLT 45 (SQ=(2000) 7 SCC 201; Nimet Resources Inc. v. S.R. Steel, VII (2000) SLT 166=IV (2000) CLT 262 (SC)=(2000) 7 SCC 497; Malaysian Airliness Systems v. Stic Travels, VIII (2000) SLT507=1 (2001) CLT4 (SC)=(2000) 7SCALE 724; Wellington Associates Limited v. Kirti Mehta, IV (2000) SLT 31=11 (2000) CLT 139 (SC)=(2000) 4 SCC 272 and Konkan Railway Construction Ltd. v. M/s. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd., I (2002) SLT533=1 (2002) CLT 177 (SC)=2002 (1) SCALE 465. But this writ petition was dismissed by order dated 9.10.2001 on the ground that petitioners had not disclosed any "new and important matter", as contemplated by Order 47 Rule 1, CPC.