RAM CHANDRA RUNGTA Vs. RAM SWARUP RUNGTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 contains some very remarkable provisions, like sections 14 and 15. In this case, only section 14 has been invoked by the petitioner. It stipulates the circumstances in which an arbitrator's mandate is terminated. 'De facto' he becomes incapable of acting or 'de jure' he is unable to act. Or he unduly delays matters.

(2.) There is another provision in the Act which is relevant in this case. It is Section 15. It inter alia supports the contention that if an arbitrator is required to make an award within a particular time, his mandate is terminated by efflux of that time. That section has not been invoked in the cause title of this application, though, there are enough averments in the petition to show that a case under this section has also been made out.

(3.) On 9th May, 2006 an agreement was made between the petitioner and the first, second, third and fourth respondents. They are members of one family. They had several disputes amongst themselves relating to ownership and control of companies, joint family businesses, partition of joint family properties and so on. They appointed the fifth respondent as the arbitrator to resolve them. The arbitrator was named in this agreement.