LAWS(BOM)-1982-10-22

BIHARILAL BHAGWANDAS MAKHIJA Vs. PRIBHLAL K GAVALANI

Decided On October 15, 1982
BIHARILAL BHAGWANDAS MAKHIJA Appellant
V/S
PRIBHLAL K GAVALANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is petition for setting aside an award dated 4th May, 1982.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the facts that lead to this petition are that the petitioner was and is occupying some premises belonging to the respondent. That disputes and differences arose between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of these premises and the compensation thereof. That by an agreement dated 17th August, 1976, entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, the respondent agreed to sell these premises to the petitioner for the price of Rs. 16,700/-. It was also agreed that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on the execution of the said agreement and the balance thereof by instalments of Rs. 400/- per month. The first of such instalments was to be paid on or before the 30th of August, 1976, and the subsequent instalments on the 10th of each succeeding month. The agreement further provided that if the petitioner committed three defaults in the payment of the monthly instalments, the respondent was entitled to the interest on the balance amount @ 18% per annum till the "default" was covered, and the said interest was to be paid along with the monthly instalment that became due and payable. That if the petitioner committed six defaults, then all the previous instalments were to stand forfeited by the respondents. Clause 5 of the agreement provided as follows :---

(3.) AT the hearing of this matter, Mr. Parsnani, the learned Advocate for the petitioner narrated the aforesaid facts and urged that there is no material before this Court that the said Khatri failed and neglected to act as an arbitrator or refused to act as an arbitrator. That in any event, if the said Khatri had failed to act as an arbitrator, the proper course for the respondent was to proceed as per the provisions of section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act. That this has admittedly not been done. That in view of this, the said A.J. Bijlani could not have acted as an arbitrator because his appointment would be bad.