LAWS(DLH)-2008-5-1

GURDEEP KAUR Vs. C K BEDI

Decided On May 13, 2008
GURDEEP KAUR Appellant
V/S
C.K.BEDI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. AS. NO. 6374 and 6375/2006 and 1807/2007 (for condonation of delay)Although, notice was issued on I. A. No. 1807/2007, vide order dated 19. 2. 2007, vide order dated 13. 12. 2007, the orders passed on 19. 2. 2007, 28. 5. 2007 and 10. 7. 2007 were recalled. Appearance was entered on behalf of the respondents on 13. 12. 2007. However, no replies have been filed. The aforesaid applications are not seriously opposed by the counsel for the respondents. As per the averments made in the applications filed by the petitioner, condonation of delay of 23 days in filing the accompanying petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is sought by the petitioner. It is submitted by the petitioner that the award was rendered on 5. 7. 2006. Though a copy of the same was received by the counsel for the petitioner on 10. 7. 2006, as the petitioner was abroad at the relevant time, she received the award from her counsel only on 16. 9. 2006, after returning to India. Immediately thereafter, steps were taken to file the petition under Section 34 of the Act which came to be filed on 31. 10. 2006. It is thus stated that while a period of 3 months when calculated w. e. f. 10. 7. 2006 expired on 9. 10. 2006, the period of 3 months if calculated w. e. f. 16. 9. 2006, had yet to expire on the date of filing the objection petition. The provisions of Section 34 (3) of the Act are invoked by the petitioner to state that sufficient cause is made out for seeking condonation of delay beyond a period of three months, but within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the award. For the reasons stated in the applications, particularly, para 3 thereof, the petitioner has shown just and sufficient cause for being prevented from making an application under Section 34 of the Act within the stipulated period of three months. Accordingly, the applications are allowed and the delay beyond three months, but within thirty days thereafter in filing the accompanying petition under Section 34 of the Act is condoned. OMP. No. 87/2007 the present petition is filed by the petitioner who is the sister of the deceased respondent No. 1, assailing the award dated 5. 7. 2006 passed by the learned Arbitrator appointed in CS (OS) Nos. 1732/1993, 1780/1994 and A. A. No. 178/1996. With the consent of the parties, vide order dated 10th april, 2002, the learned Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate all the disputes between the parties.

(2.) WHILE it is not denied by the petitioner that Mrs. C. K. Bedi, the respondent no. 1 expired during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings on 8. 11. 2004, the petitioner has chosen not to implead all her legal heirs on the record and has instead sued the deceased respondent No. 1 only through her husband, Mr. W. M. Bedi, which is apparent from a perusal of the memo of parties.

(3.) THE dispute between the parties hinges on a plot of land measuring 1005 sq. yards bearing Municipal No. W-19, G. K. Part-II, New Delhi, purchased by the respondent No. 1, a British citizen, vide registered sale deed dated 3. 6. 1975, after obtaining permission from the Reserve Bank of India. After a decade or so, the respondent No. 1 decided to sell the said plot of land and requested the petitioner, her sister and Shri Joginder Singh, the husband of the petitioner to arrange the sale of the land. This lead to a series of documentations, including execution of powers of attorney by respondent No. 1 in favour of the husband of the petitioner, an agreement dated 18. 1. 1991 entered into by the respondent No. 1 with the petitioner as Sole Proprietor of K. P. Associates, a Development and Construction Agreement dated 15. 10. 1990 executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, a collaboration agreement dated 14. 12. 1990 executed by the petitioner with one M/s R. A. M. Builders and promoters, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 1. 11. 1990 between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and cancellation thereof, vide deed dated 28. 3. 1991.