LAWS(BOM)-1993-2-116

RATANCHANDRA Vs. SURUCHI CHAND

Decided On February 12, 1993
RATANCHANDRA Appellant
V/S
SURUCHI CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Arbitration Petition No. 53 of 1991 (herein referred to as 'the petition) has been filed by Ratanchandra and Gopichandra, two of the sons of one Mahesh Chand for declaration that no valid agreement of arbitration between petitioners and respondents 1 to 32 therein subsists and that the agreement dated 3rd January 1989 is illegal, void and unenforceable in law. Further declaration to the effect that the orders passed by this Court in Arbitration Suit No. 197 of 1989 and Arbitration Petition No. 16 of the 1989 are not binding on the petitioners. Interim Petition No. 184 of 1991 has been taken out by the petitioners in the said Arbitration Petition No. 53 of 1991 for interlocutory reliefs as prayed for therein. On 20th June, 1989, the petitioners had through their mother Jamunabai filed a suit, being O. S. No. 1016 of 1989 in the Court of Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, seeking a declaration that the said agreement dated 3rd January 1989 is illegal and unenforceable in law. The said suit filed by the petitioners in the said Arbitration Petition No. 53 of 1991 has been transferred to this Court by the orders of the Honble Supreme court of India dated 4th April, 1990 and numbered as Suit No. 3207 of 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit ). Since parties to above proceedings are common and the proceedings involve common facts and common points of law, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) ONE Ramesh Chand (since deceased), Dr. Naresh Chand and Mahesh Chand have been real brothers. Ramesh Chand died in a car accident at the age of 47 years on 18th December, 1986. The 1st respondent in the petition, who is 1st defendant in the suit is the widow of the said Ramesh Chand. The respondents 2 and 3 in the petition who are defendants 2 and 3 respectively in the suit, are the daughters of the said Ramesh Chand. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 in the petition are hereinafter jointly referred to as 'ramesh Chand Group. Dr. Naresh Chand is respondent No. 19 in the petition and defendant No. 19 in the suit. The respondents 20, 21 and 22 in the petition who are defendants 20, 21 and 22 respectively in the suit are the wife and minor children respectively of the said Dr. Naresh Chand. The respondents 19, 20, 21 and 22 in the petition are hereinafter jointly referred to as 'naresh Chand Group. Mahesh Chand is 4th respondent in the petition and 4th defendant in the suit. The petitioners and respondents 5 to 18 in the petition, who are plaintiffs and defendants 5 to 18 respectively to the suit, are the children of the said Mahesh Chand out of whom, the petitioners and respondents 17 and 18 in the petition, who are plaintiffs and defendants 17 and 18 respectively in the suit, have been minors at the material time. The petitioners and respondents 5 to 18 in the petition are hereinafter jointly referred to as 'mahesh Chand Group. The respondents 33 and 34 in the petition are the learned Arbitrators whereas respondents 23 to 32 in the petition who are defendants 23 to 32 respectively in the suit, are companies incorporated and registered under The Companies Act, 1956 whose businesses alongwith partnership firms and association of persons were till 18th December, 1986 carried on by one or more of the members of the said three groups. The said three groups also had controlling interest in Western India Glass Works Ltd. , a company having its office at C-11, HIDC Industrial Area, Village Nawla, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, Maharashtra, herein-after referred to as 'wig. The said Ramesh Chand Group had 28% share in the business of the said WIG. There is a property at Hyderguda, Hyderabad which belongs to respondent No. 31 in the petition who is defendant No. 31 in the suit. There is an agricultural farm known as 'shivbaug at Hyderabad which belongs to respondent No. 24 in the petition who is defendant No. 24 in the suit.

(3.) IN order to preserve family peace and harmony and to resolve all disputes and differences between the said three groups and to avoid future disputes, the said three groups arrived at a family arrangement whereby the said Ramesh Chand Group agreed to go out of the said businesses and severe its connection with the said businesses, companies, firms and association of persons and the said WIG and to receive the value of their 1/3rd share therein including in the said Hyderabad property and their interest to the extent of 28% in the business of the said WIG. However, the said three groups were unable to agree upon the value of 1/3rd share of the said Ramesh Chand Group in the said businesses, in the said Hyderabad property and of their 28% interest in the business of the said WIG as also to the mode, manner and time of payment thereof and also as to whether the payment thereof was to be made with or without interest. In order to resolve these disputes, the parties agreed to refer the same to the arbitration of Chief Justice Mr. P. N. Bhagwati (Retired) and Mr. Justice V. D. Tulzapurkar (Retired) (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Arbitrators), and an Agreement dated 3rd January 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said agreement) was executed. A copy of the said agreement is annexed and marked as Exhibit A to the petition. The said agreement was a part of the family arrangement and was signed by respondent No. 4 in the petition for himself and on behalf of the petitioners and respondents 17 and 18 therein as their father and guardian. Similarly, the said agreement was signed by the respondent No. 19 in the petition for himself and on behalf of respondents 21 and 22 therein as their father and guardian.