JAYANTILAL HIRALAL PATEL Vs. DHANLAXMI KANTILAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant and the Respondents are heirs of Late Hiralal Velji Sankhala. The Appellant and the Second Respondent are brothers. The First Respondent is the widow of a deceased brother of the Appellant and the Second Respondent. The Third Respondent is the son of the First Respondent. The Fourth Respondent is the son of the Second Respondent. This Appeal arises from a decision dated 18 November 2011 of a Learned Single Judge by which a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 has been dismissed. A power of attorney was executed among others by the Appellant and the Respondents on 31 October 2007. Exhibit A to the Arbitration Petition is an English translation of the power of attorney which reads as follows :

(2.) The power of attorney would indicate that an agreement was entered into by the co-sharers in the property, including the Appellant by which three members of the community were appointed to effect a division of the property among the co-sharers. The agreement records that a division had been made on 30 January 1995 in the present of the father, Hiralal Velji Sankhala, who had also executed a will. The power of attorney authorised the three panchas, after considering the division already made and the terms of the will to take a decision "after making changes as required". The power of attorney states that the three brothers and their heirs would accept the decision of the three panchas.

(3.) The three panchas who were appointed under the power of attorney rendered a decision on 4 November 2007 by which they purported to effect a division of the property. The decision was impugned on the basis that it was an arbitral award in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Among the grounds specifically raised in the arbitration petition was that the decision does not constitute an arbitration award within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Moreover, it was asserted that the decision was not arrived at after a process of adjudication and no dispute was formulated for adjudication by the three panchas.