SURUCHI CHAND Vs. NARESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE parties to the above proceedings are common and the proceedings involve common facts and common points of law, the same are being disposed off by a common order.

(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. Mrs. Suruchi Chand is the widow of the said Ramesh Chand. Ms. Saloni Chand and Ms. Shivani Chand are the daughters of the said Ramesh Chand. The said Suruchi Chand, Saloni Chand and Shivani Chand are the petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 16 of the 1989 filed in this Court. The said Suruchi Chand, Saloni Chand and Shivani Chand are hereinafter collectively referred to as the petitioners. Mahesh Chand is 5th respondent in the said Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 1989 and Dr. Naresh Chand is the 1st respondent in the said Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 1989 and Dr. Naresh Chand is the 1st respondent in the said Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 1989. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 in the said Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 1989 form one group along with the said Dr. Naresh Chand and are hereinafter jointly referred to as Naresh Chand Group. Respondents 6 to 21 in the said Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 1989 are the children of 5th respondent and they along with the said Mahesh Chand form one group, hereinafter jointly referred to as Mahesh Chand Group. The petitioners form one group, which is hereinafter jointly referred to as "ramesh Chand Group. Respondent 22 to 31 to the said Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 1989 are various private limited companies whose businesses till 18th December 1986 were 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. (hereinafter referred to as WIG ). The said Ramesh Chand Group had 28% share in the business of the said WIG. There are other immovable properties in which the said Ramesh Chand Group has an interest.

(3.) THE petitioners had filed an Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 1989 in this Court to secure payment of the amounts payable to the petitioners under the said Family Arrangement dated 3rd January 1989 as also for enforcement of the covenants contained therein by having necessary orders passed therein. On 31st January 1989 consent terms were arrived at between the parties to the said Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 1989 and order in terms of the said consent terms which were filed in this Court in the proceedings of the said Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 1989 was passed by this Court on 31st January 1989. The said consent terms were certified to be in the interest of and for the benefit of the minor respondents in the said Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 1989. Since the said order dated 31st January 1989 passed in the said Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 1989 was executed only partly, the petitioners took out the aforesaid Chamber Summons No. 293 of 1992 for enforcement of the said consent order dated 31st January 1989. The said Mahesh Chand has filed the aforesaid Arbitration Petition No. 183 of 1991 to restrain the petitioners from receiving any payment from the respondents under the said consent order dated 31st January 1989. The said Naresh Chand Group along with the said limited companies being respondents 22 to 31 in the said Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 1989 have filed the aforesaid Arbitration Petition No. 201 of 1991 against the said Ramesh Chand Group and the said Mahesh Chand Group including one Jamunabai (since deceased) for restraining the said Ramesh Chand Group from recovering from the said Naresh Chand Group as also from the said limited companies any amount under the said consent order dated 31st January 1989. Virtually both the said Arbitration Petitions, viz. , Arbitration Petition No. 183 of 1991 and Arbitration Petition No. 201 of 1991 are counterparts of the aforesaid Chamber Summons No. 293 of 1992. This position that the said Arbitration Petition No. 183 of 1991 and Arbitration Petition No. 201 of 1991 are counter parts of the said Chamber Summons No. 293 of 1992 is accepted by Mrs. Nanavati, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 183 of 1991 as also by Mr. Zaiwalla, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 201 of 1991.