VIJAYPAT SINGHANIA Vs. HARI SHANKAR SINGHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a judgment dated 1 October 2009 the learned Single Judge dismissed petitions filed by the Appellants under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitions sought to question the legality of an arbitral award dated 4 August 2008 of a sole arbitrator, Mr. Justice S.N. Variava. On 21 February 1980 a deed of partnership was constituted in which three branches of the Singhania family were represented. The three branches, in these proceedings, would for convenience of reference, be referred to as the Kanpur, Kolkata and Mumbai branches. Clause-10 of the deed of partnership provided that a partner could retire with a stipulated period of notice and unless mutually agreed to, upon retirement, an outgoing partner would be entitled to receive his proportionate share in the properties of the firm in specie after deducting the liabilities. Clause-11 of the deed of partnership provided as follows:

(2.) A suit under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was instituted on 8 May 1992 by Harishankar Singhania representing the Kolkata group. The Defendants to the suit comprised of the Kanpur group and Mumbai group. The suit was dismissed as barred by limitation by a Single Judge on 20 February 1986. An appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench on 8/9 June 2004. The Supreme Court allowed a Civil appeal against the order of the Division Bench by a judgment dated 4 April 2006 and held that the suit under section 20 was not barred by limitation. By the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar Singhania Vs. Gaur Hari Shankar Singhania , : (2006) 4 SCC 658, the disputes and differences between the parties were referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator Mr. Justice S.N. Variava. While disposing of the civil appeal, the judgment of the Supreme Court, inter alia, specified the nature of the disputes that had arisen and which would have to be resolved in arbitration viz.:

(3.) During the course of the arbitral proceedings before the sole arbitrator, five properties were sold, by consent. On 20 March 2007, an agreement was arrived at between the parties during the course of reference to the following effect: