MAHAVIR PRASAD MANSINGHKA Vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR MANSINGKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act the petitioners challenge the award dated 25th November, 2002 made by the Arbitral Tribunal. The facts that are relevant for deciding this petition are as under :

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 and his four sons i. e. petitioner No. 2 and three respondents as members of the family entered into family arrangement dated 14-11-1994. The said family arrangement was titled as "memorandum of understanding"-MOU, whereby several family properties, movable and immovable, family business etc. were distributed and or transferred between the parties. "mp Mansingka Charities is the Public Trust registered under the bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. That Public Trust had three trustees (i) the petitioner No. 1, who was the Chairman; (ii) the respondent No. 1 mahendrakumar, who was the Managing Trustee and (iii) Shri O. P. Gupta, who was the trustee. In the MOU a clause was included in relation to this Public trust. The entire dispute in the present case relates to this clause. It was clause no. 16. It is reproduced below.

(3.) Clause 20 of the MOU is the Arbitration clause in relation to disputes and differences arising out of the MOU. The trustees of the said Public Trust by resolution dated 25th November, 1994 appointed the petitioner No. 2 and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as trustees. The respondent No. 1 has submitted his resignation as the Managing Trustee of the said Trust. That resignation was accepted in the meeting dated 25-11-1994. Proceedings were taken up under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act for recording the names of petitioner no. 2 and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as the trustees of the Public Trust. In those proceedings the respondent No. 1 appeared and opposed the recording of the change. Ultimately the change appointing the petitioner No. 2 and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as trustees of the said Trust was duly registered. The respondent No. 1 in the meantime got the Public Trust registered by name "shree charities" and that Public Trust wrote a letter dated 28th August, 1995 to the petitioners and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 calling upon them to make M. P. Mansingka Trust to donate 1/5th of its corpus to the newly formed Trust i. e. Shree Charities by passing necessary resolution of the M. P. Mansingka Charity trust (hereinafter referred to as the "trust"). According to the respondent No. 1 nothing was done by the Trust or by the petitioner No. 1 and therefore, he invoked the arbitration clause. Ultimately the arbitral tribunal consisting of three persons was constituted. The parties appeared before the arbitral tribunal. The respondent No. 1 was the claimant. He filed his statement of claim, which was opposed mainly by the petitioner No. 1. The parties also led oral and documentary evidence and on the basis of the evidence available on record the arbitral tribunal passed the award directing the petitioners and the respondents nos. 2 and 3 to pay to the respondent No. 1 an amount of Rs. 3.57 crore with interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of reference till realisation. The respondent No. 1 was to deposit that amount with his Trust. The award gives an option to the petitioners and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to procure that amount from the Trust. It is this award which is challenged in the present proceedings.