SATISH CHANDRA GOEL Vs. SURESH CHAND GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application by Smt. Rani Goel, hereinafter referred to as "the applicant" seeks to have the order passed on 14th February, 1992 set aside.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 29th April, 1991, Shri Satish Chandra Goel, petitioner filed an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying that award made on 24th September, 1990 by the sole Arbitrator Shri Yogesh Kumar Jain be made a rule of Court. It was alleged in the application that parties were the successors-in-interest of late Lala Ram Chander. After the death of Lala Ram Chander, there had been some disputes amongsts the successors-in-interest with respect to inheritance of Joint Hindu Family Properties. Disputes as per the arbitration agreement dated 8th August, 1990 were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Y.K. Jain, who was arrayed as respondent No. 6 in the application. It was stated that an award had been made on 24th September, 1990 by the Arbitrator, partitioning the properties left by late Lala Ram Chander. After making of the award Shri Kamal Chand Goel, the fourth son of Lala Rani Chander died on 27th November, 1990 leaving behind his widow Smt. Rani Goel and one son Rajiv Goel. According to Satish Chandra Goel, he had received the original award from the Arbitrator, which was being filed with the application with a prayer for making the same a rule of the Court.

(3.) The application came up before the Registrar on 21nd May, 1991 when notice was directed to be issued to the Arbitrator directing him to file the arbitration proceedings in Court, on or before 23rd September, 1991 the next date. On the date fixed, a statement was made by Shri Arun Aggarwal, Ad vocate, appearing for the Arbitrator that there no arbitration proceedings were with the Arbitrator. On the same date notice of the filing of award was directed to be issued to the parties. On behalf of Satish Chandra Goel, notice was accepted by Shri P.K. Jain, Advocate. Notice was thus directed to be issued to respondents 1 to 5 only including the applicant herein. On 28th January, 1992, Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Advocate, put in appearance on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, who made a statement that he had no objection to the award. The Deputy Registrar, directed the case to be posted in Court on 14th February, 1992. None appeared on 14.2.1992, therefore the Court proceeded to make an order that since there was no object ion to the award, the same is made a rule of the Court. In these circumstances, dec ree in terms of the award was drawn up.