TARACHAND SITARAM NARANG Vs. BHAGWANDAS SITARAM NARANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the award impugned in this petition was required to be registered under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 hereinafter referred to as "the 1908 Act" or was it not required to be registered as provided in Section 17(2)(v) of the 1908 Act is the significant question which arises for consideration of this Court in this Arbitration Petition.

(2.) THE prayer made in the petition is that the Arbitration Award dated 27th August, 1993 being Award No.234 of 1993 be set aside. The first petitioner and the first Respondent are brothers. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are the family members of the first Petitioner. Petitioner No.8 is the company jointly belonging to petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are the family members of the Respondent No.1 Respondents Nos. 8 and 9 are two Private Limited Companies. The first Petitioner and his family are 50 per cent shareholders and the first respondent and his family members are 50 per cent shareholders each of the Company known as Bombay Latex and Dispersions Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.8). The Petitioners are hereinafter referred to as "Tarachand Sitaram Narang (T.S.N. Group). The Respondents are hereinafter referred to as "Bhagwandas Sitaram Narang (B.S.N.Group). Disputes has arisen between the two groups. They had entered into an agreement on 4th May, 1983 which is said to be in the nature of a "family arrangement". This agreement provided for the division and/or partition of the various assets of the Companies and the firms owned by the two family groups. The agreement also contained an arbitration clause which provided as follows:

(3.) IN reply, Mr.Kadam submits that this Award does not require to be registered. According to him a perusal of the Award together with the various clauses of the agreement would show that no new rights had been created or declared by the learned Arbitrator. After declaring the rights of the parties in accordance with the agreement the learned Arbitrator has directed that the parties to do and execute all such acts, deeds and things to effectuate the said transfers. Thus it is submitted that the case of the Respondents is squarely covered by judgment of the Supreme Court given in the case of Mrs. Tehmi P.Sidhwa and ors. v/s. S.B. & Sons (AIR 1974 S.C. 1912) (Paras 3, 5 and 6). In this case the Supreme Court has held as follows :