RITU PURI Vs. S K KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT -

(2.) ONE Anoop Puri, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, had granted a licence to the defendant No. I, Surinder Kumar Khurana, for the use of his printing machines on payment of monthly licence fee of Rs. 3000.00 in terms of the agreement dated March 8, 1978. Anoop Puri had the right to revoke the licence for breach of any of the terms of the licence agreement. Anoop Puri revoked the licence on May 31, 1979 by telegram and notice on account of alleged breach of terms. It was alleged that the defendant No, I failed to pay the licence fee, telephone and electricity bills. The defendant No. 1, however, raised some disputes and demanded compensation for alleged wrongful cancellation of his licence before the expiry of two years. Defendant No. 1 had appointed an arbitrator according to the arbitration clause in the agreement dated March 8, 1979 whereunder each party was to appoint an arbitrator and the matters in disputes arising out of the agreement were to bereferred to two arbitratorl. Defendant No.1 appointed his arbitrator in accordance with the agreement between the partics. Anoop Puri failed to appoint his arbitrator. Defendant NO.1 thereon appointed Mr. M L Bhargava, Advocate, as the sole arbitrator in the case in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Mr. M.L. Bhargava had earlier been appointed by the defendant No. I as his arbitrator. Anoop Puri then moved an application under Sections 5, 13 and 33 of the Arbitration Act (for short the Act) to this Court being O.M.P. 141 of 1979. It was alleged by Anoop Puri that on June 8, 1979 defendant No.1 had accepted that his licence had been properly and validly cancelled and he stood absolved of his liability whatsoever in respect of the agreement dated March 8, 1978 and defendant No. I paid the arrears of licence fee and prepared a full and final settlement of the accounts and that no dispute whatsoever relating to the said agreement dated March 8. 1978 urvived and that he stood fully discharged. A discharge certificate was also executed on June 8, 1979 between the parties and a receipt for having received back machines and the amount in full and final settlement was also issued by Anoop Puri in favour of the defendant No. 1. This petition of Anoop Puri was contested by the present defendant No. 1. The Court came to the conclusion that the question as to whether the agreement of June 8, 1979 bad validly revoked the original agreement dated March 8, 1978 was a matter for decision by the arbitrator and, therefore, it could not be said that there were no disputes between the parties which required decision by the arbitrator. It was held that the matters in dispute were to be decided by the arbitrator. Anoop Puri died on March 17, 1983. The arguments in the case had, however, concluded before the Court on March 16, 1983. Thelegal representatives of Anoop Puri were not formally brought on record of the case. They were however given an opportunity to appoint their arbitrator by a certain date, superseding the appointment of Mr. M.L. Bhargava as the sole arbitrator. I am informed that Smt. Ritu Puri, plaintiff No. 1, widow of Anoop Puri, appointed Mr. D.P. Sharma, Advocate as her arbitrator in the case after the decision in the said OMP-J41/79. The telegram by which she appointed Mr. D.P. Sharma, Advocate as her arbitrator did not say that she appointed Mr. Sharma as arbitrator as a next friend of Ms. Mahima Puri, minor daughter of Mr. Anoop Puri also. Mrs.N. Puri, mother of Anoop Puri, also did not join in the appointment of an arbitrator by Smt. Ritu Puri. The judgment in the OMP-141/79 also stated that in case the two heirs of Mr. Anoop Puri failed to appoint their arbitrator by July 15, 1983. Mr. M.L. Bhargava, Advocate shall-act as the sole arbitrator to decide the various disputes.