SATPAL P. MALHOTRA Vs. PUNEET MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Arbitration Act, 1996'), the appellants seek to challenge the order dated 31st May, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge ­ 1, Pune by which the learned District Judge allowed the arbitration application filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 by the respondents and has set aside the award dated 21st July, 2007 made by the learned sole arbitrator appointed by the parties to adjudicate upon the dispute that had arisen between the parties. By the said award, the learned sole arbitrator had awarded some of the claims made by the appellants. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal and cross objections as emerge from the pleadings and documents filed by both parties are as under :-

(2.) THE Appellants and Respondent Nos.1 to 5 ("the Respondents") are all members of the Malhotra family of Pune. Appellant No.1 is the father of Appellant Nos. 4 and 7 and Respondent No.1 and the grand-father of Appellant Nos. 6, 9 and 10 and Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5. Appellant No.3 is the brother of Appellant No.1 and is the paternal uncle of the aforesaid persons. The Malhotra family owned, controlled and managed a company known as Weikfield Products Company (I) Private Limited and several other businesses, assets and properties including a partnership firm known as Weikfield Ventures International. Disputes arose within the family. It is the case of the appellants that in order to resolve all the family disputes and differences, the parties appointed one Mr.Rustam S.Gae, an old family friend of over 35 years who was well-known to all the family members and who was the former Law Secretary to the Government of India and who practiced as a Senior Advocate in the Supreme Court of India. It is the case of the appellants that the said arbitration was to be in the nature of an 'informal' one, where the parties would make their proposals and claims which, in the absence of agreement between them, would be adjudicated upon by the Learned arbitrator.

(3.) IT is the case of the appellants that all the parties by two separate documents one undertaking and mandate dated 28th October, 2005 and 5th December, 2005 (addendum to undertaking and mandate) agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration and both these documents together constitute the reference to the arbitration between the parties including the lady members of the family.