RAMCHANDRA UDAYSINH JADHAVRAO Vs. GIRISHNAVNATHRAO AVHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal raises a question as regards remedy available to the appellant herein, in respect of an order dtd. 9/1/2014 passed by a sole arbitrator, for the reason that by the impugned judgement and order, the District Court has held that an application filed under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the appellant was not maintainable. Since the District Court rendered a finding that the application under Sec. 34 of the said Act itself was not maintainable, there was no discussion on the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the arbitrator.

(2.) The learned counsel for the parties have made submissions with regard to the scope of jurisdiction under Sec. 34 of the said Act, in the backdrop of the aspect of termination of arbitral proceedings under Sec. 32 thereof, with particular reference to the concept of termination of mandate of the arbitrator touching upon Ss. 14 and 15 of the said Act. The learned counsel for the parties have referred to various judgements in the said context pertaining to termination of the mandate of an arbitrator, as opposed to the termination of the arbitral proceedings themselves, which has become a bone of contention between the parties. This Court is called upon to consider the same and a finding on the said aspect would result in the present appeal being either allowed and the matter being remanded to the District Court, or the appellant being advised to resort to appropriate proceedings, particularly under Sec. 14 of the said Act.

(3.) A brief reference to facts would be necessary. The appellant, being the original claimant, is the owner of a piece of land at Village Wagholi, District Pune, Maharashtra. Respondent No.1 was a dealer of respondent No.2 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Respondent No.2 Corporation had granted the dealership to respondent No.1 for running a petrol pump at Wagholi. In that context, respondent No.1 approached the appellant and a lease deed was executed in favour of respondent No.1 for a period of 30 years, with an option for renewal of 10 years. As per the terms of the lease, respondent No.1 was to execute a sub-lease in favour of respondent No.2. Accordingly, in terms of the registered lease deed dtd. 29/9/2001, executed in favour of respondent No.1, he executed a registered sub-lease dtd. 15/3/2002 in favour of respondent No.2.