YAMUNADUTT CHIMANLAL Vs. VARSHABEN NARANBHAI DANTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri Anshin Desai with learned Advocate Shri Premal Rachh on behalf of the petitioners, learned Advocate Shri Yatin Oza with learned Advocate Shri R.D. Dave and learned Advocate Shri Anil Patel on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2, learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Utkarsh Sharma on behalf of respondents no., 3, 4, 7 and 8, learned Advocate Shri Rohan Shah on behalf of respondents no. 5 and 6 and learned Advocate Shri P.K. Pancholi on behalf of respondent no.9.

(2.) By way of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged a so called order passed by respondent no.9 herein masquerading as an Arbitrator inasmuch as according to the petitioners neither there was any agreement between the parties for arbitrating the dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents nor has this Court passed any order with regard to appointment of respondent no.9 as the Arbitrator.

(3.) Since it was prima facie the opinion of this Court that an action not permissible under the law had been initiated by respondent no.9, the said respondent no. 9 had been called to submit his explanation and whereas respondent no.9 had appeared before this Court in person and had submitted that the arbitration proceedings as well as so called interim orders/directions given by respondent no.9 in the proceedings where on account of mistake on part of the Arbitrator as well as limited understanding and limited knowledge as regards the same of the respondent no.9, an affidavit/declaration on oath stating as much is submitted by the respondent no.9 where the respondent no.9 has in addition to what has been noted above submitted that all the orders which are under challenge in this group of petitions passed by him, may be interfered with inasmuch the respondent no.9 in the affidavit has stated that this Court may pass appropriate orders in all cases. Respondent no.9 has also undertaken that henceforth he would not conduct any arbitration proceedings in future. The said affidavit/ declaration on oath by the respondent no.9 is directed to be taken on record and whereas respondent no.9 is directed to strictly abide by the same any deviation from the undertaking given by respondent no.9 would/might entail reopening of the present proceedings against respondent no.9.