JAGDISH RAI Vs. RAM KISHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an objection petition filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Sections 94 and 151 of the CPC seeking to challenge the arbitral award dated 18.11.1996 given by penal of three arbitrators appointed during pendency of partition suit filed by the petitioner being CS(OS) No. 620/1992.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a suit for partition in this Court being CS(OS) No. 620/1992 seeking partition of two properties being built up property bearing No. B -2/23, Ashok Vihar, Phase -II, Delhi (built on a plot area of 1080 square yards) and industrial plot No. 5, Block A, Wazirpur Industrial Area (built on a plot area of 2300 square yards). While this suit for partition filed by the petitioner was pending, the respondents filed an application purported to be an arbitration agreement along with list of documents vide diary No. 7457 dated 11.03.1996. The copy of the said application purported to be an arbitration agreement between the parties is at pages 124 -125 of the paper book. The petitioner filed his response by way of his reply to the said application on 08.07.1996 and disputed the correctness of the contents of the application purported to be an arbitration agreement filed by the respondents on 11.03.1996. However, the arbitrators named in the application filed by the respondents on 11.03.1996 gave notice to the petitioner for appearance before them. The first notice was given by the arbitrators on 11.06.1996, second notice on 08.07.1996 and third notice on 24.08.1996 before the petitioner was proceeded ex -parte in the arbitration proceedings pending before the arbitrators on 12.09.1996. These three notices given by the arbitrators to the petitioner for his appearance in the arbitration proceedings are at pages 134, 135 and 139 of the paper book. The petitioner gave two telegrams, first on 10.08.1996 and second on 11.09.1996 disputing the reference of dispute for arbitration stating that his signatures on the application purported to be an arbitration agreement were obtained under pressure. These telegrams sent by the petitioner are available at pages 136 & 147 of the paper book. However, the arbitrators chose to continue with the reference and proceeded to give an award dated 18.11.1996, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present proceedings inter -alia on the following grounds:

(3.) Ms. Nandini Sahni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 4 has opposed this petition relying upon Section 7(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 according to which a document signed by the parties is deemed to be an arbitration agreement. The contention of Ms. Sahni appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 4 is that the application filed by the respondents in partition suit being CS(OS) No. 620/1992 on 11.03.1996 bears signatures of the petitioner and also of the respondents and therefore, according to her, the said document has to be treated as valid arbitration agreement between the parties. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 4 has further contended that the objections against the arbitral award dated 18.11.1996 filed by the petitioner are hit by Sections 12, 13 & 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. She has also argued that in view of provisions contained in Section 16 (2) & (5) of the new Arbitration Act, it was for the arbitrators to have decided the question of their own jurisdiction and it was not open for the petitioner to raise the objection of jurisdiction of the arbitrators after the pronouncement of the award.