MADHUKAR GOEL Vs. M S GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 14 (2) of the arbitration Act, 1940 for making the award dated 9th May 1993 as rule of the court. The award is given by Mr. V. G. Baliga whereby he gave a chart of different properties with his decision as to which property will go to whom and also stated that M. S. Goel shall pay Rs. 80 lac to petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner in this case is Mr. Madhukar Goel while respondent were Mr. M. S. Goel, Mr. Vipul Goel and Mr. V. G. Baliga. Mr. Vipul Goel is the son of Mr. M. S. Goel. Mr. M. S. Goel died during the proceedings. The objections were filed against the award by Mr. Vipul Goel and Mr. M. S. Goel under Section 30, 33 of indian Arbitration Act stating therein that the award rendered by Mr. V. G. Baliga was not a valid award. Mr. Baliga was appointed only as a mediator to mediate the disputes between Mr. Madhukar Goel and Mr. M. S. Goel as he was close to the family. Mr. Baliga's award was not an arbitration award, even if it was named as arbitration award. It was actually a mediation award, therefore, not a valid and enforceable arbitration award under Arbitration Act, 1940 It is also submitted by the objections that even as per the arbitrator/mediator, the reference was done to two arbitrators viz. one Mr. Baliga and other Mr. Mahinder Khanna of M/s K. C. Khanna and Company of Chartered Account. The award was passed only by one arbitrator and not by two arbitrators, as appointed by the parties. The other objection taken is that supposing Mr. Baliga was asked to arbitrate between Mr. Madhukar Goel and Mr. M. S. Goel, he had no jurisdiction to give an award in respect of properties of those persons who were not even parties to the mediation/ arbitration and Mr. Baliga had no jurisdiction or authority to decide or to make an award with respect to the interest, ownership and title of entire body of shareholders of the company leatheroids Plastic Private Limited ("the company", for short) as has been done by him. It is also submitted that Mr. Baliga had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the ownership of various properties, movable or immovable, which did not belong to Mr. Madhukar Goel and Mr. M. S. Goel or to decide about the shares and securities of shareholders, wives, sons of Mr. Madhukar Goel and Mr. M. S. Goel, as has been done by him. The award was, therefore, liable to be set aside.

(3.) SIMILAR are the objections of Mr. Vipul Goel and one Mr. P. C. Malik, who was one of the shareholders in the company and was having 2000 shares and Mr. Baliga had given an award in respect of his shares also.