DEEPAK MITRA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The core question involved in the present writ petition is whether in a case in which a dispute between the parties has been referred for decision by an Arbitral Tribunal appointed by the High Court, interim order which is termed as an 'interim award' passed by it with a view to ascertain the feasibility viability of the proposal for vertical division of immovable and moveable properties and asset of the two private companies equally, after ascertaining the wishes of the shareholders and ultimately holding that the division is not practicably possible, can be made subject-matter of challenge by initiating proceedings u/S. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the District Judge, Allahabad, being the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district. It is in the wake of this controversial question that the petitioner-Deepak Mitra has prayed for a writ of prohibition to prohibit District Judge, Allahabad from proceeding with the arbitration case No. 18 of 1998 Ashok Mitra v. Smt. Sucharitra Mitra and for a direction in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 19-3-1999 and 9-10-1998 passed by him in the aforesaid proceeding.

(2.) . Shorn of all superfluities, the facts of the case are that late K. M. Mitra and his brother-in-law B. N. Ghosh along with some other persons floated two companies in the year 1953 for the purposes of publishing and printing work respectively- (1) Mitra Prakashan Private Ltd., and (2) Maya Press Private Ltd., which in course of time acquired name and fame. Late K. M. Mitra died leaving behind his widow Smt. Nandrani Mitra, his five sons, namely, Alok Mitra (respondent No. 6) : Ashok Mitra (respondent No. 2); Deepak Mitra (petitioner); Parvendra Mitra (whose whereabouts are not known as he has not heard of for a considerable long time); Manmohan Mitra (respondent No. 3) and a daughter Smt. Madhurima Mitra (now Ghosh) respondent No. 9. B. N. Ghosh also died leaving behind his widow Smt. Amiya Ghosh respondent No. 11. After the death of K. M. Mitra and B. N. Ghosh, Smt. Nandrani Mitra became the Chairman of the Mitra Prakashan Private Limited. So long she was alive, the disputes between her sons did not come to surface. She died on 1-9-1993 and thereafter, a spate of litigation followed and in the litigative zeal of the warring family, Smt. Illa Mitra, respondent No. 7; Smt. Sucharita Mitra, respondent No. 4; Smt. Deepika Mitra, respondent No. 8 and Smt. Taposi Mitra, respondent No. 5 respectively wives of Alok Mitra, Ashok Mitra, Deepak Mitra and Manmohan Mitra also joined. Ashok Mitra, respondent No. 2 invoked the testamentary jurisdiction of this Court by filing case No. 6 of 1996 in which a challenge was made to the alleged Will of later Smt. Nandrani Mitra. As an offshoot, a chain of writ petitions came to be filed, besides lodging of civil suit Nos. 176 of 1996; 272 of 1996 and 233 of 1996. Company Law Board was also approached. In the backdrop of all pervasive litigation between the parties, a good sense and counselling appears to have prevailed and with the whole-hearted consent of the parties, an order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 27-11-1995 in writ petition No. 35721 of 1996, for the resolution of their entire dispute including in relation to Maya Press Private Limited, which was subject-matter of not only the said writ petition but also other disputes pending in different Courts, including grant of an interim relief, which may be desired by one or the other parties, through arbitration of Mr. Justice Amitav Banerjee a retired Chief Justice of this Court. Accordingly writ petition was disposed of with the following observations :

(3.) . In the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the maintainability of the application u/S. 34 of the Act (case No. 18 of 1998) before learned District Judge, Allahabad on the grounds that the impugned order dated 27-7-1998 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal could not be made the subject-matter of challenge as the said order cannot be termed as an 'award' and that since the order dated 11-4-1998 about the devolution of the shares of Smt. Nandrani Mitra had become final it could not be reopened and challenged before the District Judge who has illegally assumed the jurisdiction not vested in him by passing the interim order dated 9-10-1998, which came to be extended from time to time in a proceeding which is not entertainable. On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5, a counter-affidavit has been filed by Manmohan Mitra-respondent No. 3 to which a rejoinder affidavit has been brought on record by the petitioner.