MODERN SUITINGS LIMITED Vs. JUGAL KISHORE AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 26th February, 1992, an award was made by the Arbitrators, who were appointed as such by the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Registered), to whom the disputes, which had arisen amongets the claimants and respondents I and 2 were referred. The claimant moved an application seeking directions against the Arbitrators as also the Delhi Hindustanti Mercantile Association (Register) to file the award in Court and then to pass decree in terms thereof. After notice the award was filed in Court along with the proceedings recorded by the Arbitrators. Respondents 1 and 2 chosen to prefer objections to the award.

(2.) Respondents have alleged that Rules 36 and 37 of the Delhi Hindustani Marcantile Association Rules and Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") have not been followed. As per Rule 36, only the Members of the Association are entitled to refer their disputes to the Association to be decided by the process of arbitration. A non-member is not entitled to refer disputes for adjudication. Since the claimant is a non-member, therefore, disputes could not have been referred to adjudication by the Arbitrators. Thus according to the respondents, the award is without jurisdiction. In addition, the other objections are that the claimant had not filed any claim before the Association but had moved only an application seeking permission to file a claim. Three Members of the Association thereafter put pressure on the respondents to sign the proceedings in which the President of the Association was authorised to give decision and it was on that application that award was made. Sufficient opportunity was not allowed to the respondents to put forth their claim and even the counter-claims of the respondents have not been adjudicated upon.

(3.) The claimant has vehemently opposed the objections and has termed the same to be false and vexatious. According to the claimant, on 5th February, 1992, respondents categorically agreeed for settlement of the disputes through the process of arbitration by the three Arbitrators, namely, Shri Tilak Raj Kapur, President of the Association; Shri Suresh Bindal, Senior Vice President; and Shri Mangal Sain Malhotra. The name of Shri Mangan Sain Malhotra was suggested by respondents 1 and 2 which was also agreed upon by the claimant. Respondents 1 and 2 duly participated in the entire arbitration proceedings and did not raise any objection as regards the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators. Having voluntarily submitted to the authority of the Arbitrators and having consented for adjudication of the disputes by Arbitrators, the respondents are estopped from raising any objection. According to the claimants, the claim as well as counter claim were duly considered and award was made which is not liable to be set aside on any plea/ground, as alleged.