NEETA LALITKUMAR SANGHAVI Vs. BAKULABEN DHARMADAS SANGHAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Arbitration Petition the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 20th July, 2017 (for short "the impugned order") passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioners herein (dated 27th February, 2017) for bringing themselves on record in the arbitration proceedings as the heirs of the original claimant - Lalitkumar Vanmalidas Sanghavi.

(2.) In the averments in the petition and more particularly paragraph 20 thereof, it is stated that the petitioners were advised to challenge the impugned order under Section 14 as also under Section 37 by way of an Appeal from Order under Section 16 of the Act as well as by way of an application under Section 34. When this matter was first argued before me, I had enquired from the petitioners as to under which provisions they are challenging the impugned order. It was thereafter stated on behalf of the petitioners that this petition be treated as a petition under Section 14 and more particularly under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act"). It is on this basis that I have proceeded to hear the parties.

(3.) To understand the controversy, it would be necessary to set out some basic facts. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings are disputes relating to the Partnership Firm known as "Sanghavi Brothers" (for short "the Firm"). Since disputes arose between the partners of the said Firm, the original claimant (i.e. the father of the petitioners) approached this Court under Section 11 of the Act for constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating the disputes relating to the said Firm. This application was allowed by this Court by an order dated 21st February, 2004 and the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted comprising of (i) Justice H. Suresh (Retd), (ii) Justice I. G. Shah (Retd) and (iii) Mr. Suresh Payak (for short "the three-Member Tribunal") for adjudicating the disputes in relation to the said Firm. Once the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted, the original claimant (the father of the petitioners) filed his statement of claim before the three-Member Tribunal. The respondents also filed their statement of defence. It is the case of the petitioners that several hurdles were created by the respondents and/or their predecessors in the progress of the arbitration proceedings. In view of the delays and due to the non-cooperation on the part of the respondents and/or their predecessors, the three-Member Tribunal passed an order dated 29th October, 2007 stating that the Arbitration Proceedings stand terminated.