MOHANLAL AGARWAL Vs. MANJAN DEVI PATNI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, A.P. No.74 of 2019 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (in short "the Act of 1996") the petitioner has sought to challenge the award made by the Sole Arbitrator on February 28, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award"). The petitioner has also filed an application, G.A. No.399 of 2019 for stay of operation of the impugned award. In the arbitration proceeding the respondent nos. 1 to 11 herein were the claimants, the petitioner and the proforma respondent nos. 12 and 13 herein were the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The proforma respondents herein did not appear before the Arbitrator. For the sake of convenience the parties are described hereinafter as per their array in this application.

(2.) By the impugned award the Arbitrator has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,10,00,000/- together with pre-reference interest, interest pendente lite and interest upon award at varying rates to the respondent nos.1 to 11, (hereinafter referred to as "the respondents"). The Arbitrator further directed the petitioner to deliver possession of the subject property situate at premises No.14 R.G.Kar Road, P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata-700004 (hereinafter referred to as "the said property") and to return all documents, papers etc. concerning the said property to the respondents.

(3.) The petitioner has filed the application to challenge the impugned award beyond the time stipulated under sub-Section (3) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 read with the Proviso thereto. In other words, the petitioner has filed the present application beyond three months from the date of receipt of the impugned award and even beyond thirty days thereafter. The petitioner, however, claims the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitaion Act,1963 for admission of this application. In fact, the petitioner had filed an application, Misc. Case No.298 of 2018, under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the learned District Judge at Alipore, South 24-parganas and challenged the impugned award within three months from the date of recipt thereof. The petitioner alleged that disputes and differences which had arisen between the parties culminating in making of the impugned award by the Arbitrator related to the said property situate within the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge at Alipore. Thus, according to the petitioner, in view of the definition of the term "Court" in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act of 1996, the Court of the learned District Judge at Alipore was the only court which had the jurisdiction to entertain the said Misc. Case No.298 of 2018. The respondents, however, filed an application raising objection to the maintainability of the said Misc. Case No.298 of 2018 before the learned District Judge at Alipore. The respondents stated that they had filed an application, A.P. No. 712 of 2017 under Section 29A of the Act of 1996, before this Court praying for extension of time for making and publication of the award by the Arbitrator. By order dated September 05, 2017 a learned Single Judge of this Court, in presence of the petitioner, allowed the said application and extended the time for making the award by the Arbitrator. The respondents contended that in view of the said order dated dated September 05, 2017 passed by this Court, Section 42 of the Act of 1996 is squarely applicable in this case and the learned District Judge at Alipore lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the said Misc. Case No.298 of 2018. The respondents prayed for rejection of the said Misc. Case No.298 of the 2018. The petitioner contested the said application and filed his written objection. During the pendency of the said Misc. Case 298 of 2018 the respondent nos. 1 to 11 filed the application, EC 327 of 2018 before this Court to execute the award made by the Arbitrator against the petitioner. The said execution application was moved upon notice to the petitioner and by order dated August 01, 2018 a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court restrained the petitioner from selling, disposing of, alienating, encumbering all of its properties and assets. It appears that the petitioner did not challenge the said order dated August 01, 2018 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the execution application.