LAWS(DLH)-2009-8-71

MANAK CHAND JAIN Vs. LOVE JAIN

Decided On August 24, 2009
MANAK CHAND JAIN Appellant
V/S
LOVE JAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1996 with respect to arbitral award dated 04. 05. 2009 is for consideration for admission.

(2.) THE arbitrator has been impleaded as respondent No. 3. The arbitrator is not required to be so impleaded in these proceedings. The name of respondent No. 3 is struck off from array of parties.

(3.) ONE of the claims of the petitioner before the Arbitrator was for possession of shop no. 1168/8, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi 6. The Arbitrator has held the petitioner to be the owner of the said shop and entitled to possession of the same. In fact, it is stated "claim for possession of the shop is decided in favour of the claimant". In spite of the said claim of the petitioner having been allowed, objection are preferred with respect thereto also. It is contended that the Arbitrator has, in the last line of the award, stated "claim and counter claim are rejected. The parties are directed to bear their own cost of the proceedings". It is thus contended that in spite of having allowed the claim for possession in the earlier paragraph, in the final paragraph of the award the claim for possession has also be dismissed. In fact an application under Section 33 of the Act is also stated to have been preferred before the Arbitrator in this regard and which was disposed of by the Arbitrator vide order dated 21. 05. 2009. The Arbitrator has clarified that the last paragraph of the award is concerned with the claim no. 5 of the claimant (petitioner) and counter-claim No. 2 of the respondent no. 2 and counter-claim No. 3 of the respondent no. 3 and has further clarified that the last paragraph aforesaid relates to the said claim/counter-claim only. Notwithstanding the aforesaid clarification by the Arbitrator, the petitioner has still taken objection thereto. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the absence of the Arbitrator passing any direction against the respondents for delivery of possession, the award is bad.