ZULKARNAIN MOHAMMEDHUSAIN KAGALWALA Vs. TAHERBHAI ABDULLABHAI OF MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO awards were passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The above four petitions were filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the awards. Two petitions each were filed in respect of each of the said awards. The petitions were partly allowed. The appellant in all the appeals is the same. The appellant was one of the respondents in each of the petitions. The original appellant having died, by an order of 2011, his four heirs were brought on record.

(2.) APPELLANT No.1 in each of the appeals desires to be represented by a separate advocate in each of the appeals. There are two ways of dealing with the situation. One is by transposing some of the appellants as respondents. That however would not be satisfactory in all cases. For instance a transposed appellant may wish to take additional grounds by amending the memo of appeal at a later date. The other appellant may not agree to the same. Furthermore, there may be conflicting interests between the appellant and the transposed appellants even on the merits of the matter. In such cases, neither the appellant nor the appellants transposed as respondents would be able to deal with their respective rights satisfactorily in a common appeal.

(3.) MR . Sen, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants in these Chamber Summons invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in Laxmidas N. Madhavani V/s. Madhavani Private Ltd,1985 88 BLR 308. The learned Single Judge of this Court held as under: -