KISHOR JITENDRA DALAL Vs. JAYDEEP INVESTMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks declaration that the arbitration proceedings in Case No. 45 of 1991 pending before respondents 2 and 3, the Arbitrators, have become null and void since time for the Arbitrators to make the award has expired and the petitioner has declined to give his consent for enlargement of time for the Arbitrators to make the award. The petitioner has been a member of The Stock Exchange, Bombay (for short, the Exchange ). However, the membership of the petitioner is presently suspended by the Governing Board of the Exchange. Prior to suspension of the membership of the petitioner, the 1st respondents had effected transactions in shares through the petitioner at the Exchange in accordance with Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange. In respect of such transactions, certain disputes and differences arose by and between the 1st respondents and the petitioner which the 1st respondents referred to arbitration as per Arbitration agreement in existence by and between the petitioner and the 1st respondents. The 1st respondents had appointed the 2nd respondent as their Arbitrator and the petitioner had appointed the 3rd respondent as his Arbitrator. The reference to Arbitration was made some time in the month of April, 1991. In the proceedings pending before them, the Arbitrators have held several meetings to hear the reference. The hearings of the reference have now practically concluded and the Arbitrators are to make the award.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Arbitrators were required to make the award within four months of entering upon the reference and since the Arbitrators have not made the award within the time prescribed under Clause 3 of the First Schedule to the Act and as the petitioner has declined to give his consent for extension of time for the Arbitrators to make the award, the Arbitrators have become functus officio and as such, are not now entitled to make the award and the proceedings before them have become null and void.

(3.) EARLIER and even on 7th April, 1994, the petitioner himself had requested the Arbitrators to make the award. On 3rd August, 1994, the petitioner had submitted before the Arbitrators that since the petitioner was not giving his consent for enlargement of time for the Arbitrators to make the award, by reason of section 28 of the Act the proceedings before the Arbitrators had become null and void and that the Arbitrators ceased to have jurisdiction to make the award.