GULABCHAND Vs. VARNI DIGAMBAR JAIN GURUKUL SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 115, CPC is directed against the order dated 14-7-2003 passed by IX ADJ, Jabalpur in Execution Case No. 1/2001, whereby objection under Section 47, CPC was dismissed.

(2.) WITH reference to agreement (Annexure A-1) the Arbitrators were appointed to resolve the dispute between the parties. The Arbitrators made a faisala (Annexure A-2 ). This faisala was put to execution by the non-applicant vide Annexure A-3. During the pendency of this execution before the Court below on 22-8-2001, parties again referred the matter to the Panchayat Sabha vide agreement (Annexure A-7 ). This agreement was signed by the office bearers of the non-applicant Samiti. Arbitrators Ratanlal, Mool-chand Luhadia and Ashok Kumar Patni commenced arbitral proceedings immediately. However, on 23-8-2001, a resolution was passed by the non-applicant Samiti that it sticks to the earlier faisala (Annexure A-2) and further in arbitral proceedings are not required. On the basis of the resolution dated 23-8-2001 (Annexure A-15), non-applicant Samiti abstained from further participating arbitration proceedings and insisted execution of faisala (Annexure A-2 ). The applicant filed objection under Section 47, CPC (Annexure A-4) that the award has been superseded by the parties by appointing another set of Arbitrators to resolve the differences. The validity of the faisala was seriously being disputed. Therefore, the parties agreed to appoint three persons of highly reputed to resolve the differences aforesaid. It was agreed that this would supersede the present Panch Faisala (Annexure A-2 ). Therefore, the Pancha Faisala (Annexure A-2) can not be executed as it does not now subsists. This objection under Section 47, CPC was resisted by the non-applicant by filing a reply (Annexure A-5), the contention is that the agreement superseding the Panch Faisala (Annexure A-2) was not valid as the agreement (Annexure A-7) was not executed by the non-applicant Samiti. Therefore, vide resolution dated 23-8-2001 (Annexure A-15), it was rescinded.

(3.) AGREEMENT dated 22-8-2001 (Annexure A-7) was signed by the office bearers of the non-applicant Samiti as well as the office bearers of Prashikshan Sansthan. It was also signed by one of the Panch of the arbitral proceedings. Annexures A-8, A-9, A- 10, affidavits of Ratanlal, Moolchand Luhadia and Ashok Kumar Patni are to the effect that with reference to the agreement (Annexure A-7), executed in their favour by the respective parties, the arbitral proceedings commenced on 22-8-2001 itself and the representatives of non-applicant Samiti also participated. In view of this, it was contended that an unilateral act of rescinding the agreement (Annexure A-7) vide resolution dated 23-8-2001 (Annexure A-15) will not be valid and in any case under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short 'the Act') the non-applicant Samiti ought to have agitate the grievance before the Arbitrators only.