SUDARSHAN M SUREKHA Vs. S M SAMANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE names of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are permitted to be deleted. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(2.) ALL these four petitions are filed by members of the same family. The awards have also been made by the same Arbitrators. The questions that arise for determination are also almost identical. Therefore, all these four petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.

(3.) IT appears that the claim was referred to the Arbitrators under the bye-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange by the respondent No. 1 for recovery of some amounts from the petitioners. It transpires that the proceedings started in the year 1987. At that time, the petitioners sought inspection of the documents relied on by the respondent No. 1 in its statement of claim. The inspection of the documents was taken. Thereafter, a request was made for supply of zerox copies of the documents. However, the zerox copies were not supplied. Therefore, a request was made to the Arbitrators for a direction to the respondent No. 1 to supply the zerox copies of the documents. However, the Arbitrators declined to issue any such direction. The matters though initiated in the year 1987, dragged on because of the change of Arbitrators from time to time. It transpires that in Arbitration Petition No. 262 of 1999, the petitioner therein had made a positive commitment before the Arbitrators that written statement would be filed, however, still no written statement was filed. Thereafter, witness for the respondent No. 1 was examined and it is only thereafter that the written statements and counter claims were filed by the petitioners. According to the averments in the petition, these written statements and counter claims were rejected by the Arbitrators and the awards were made directing the petitioners to pay the amounts mentioned in the awards.