DEVENDRA KUMAR SETHIA Vs. SUNIL KUMAR SETHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the submission of learned counsel for petitioner Mr. G N Sahewalla and learned counsel for the respondent Mr. O P Bhati.

(2.) This is an application u/s 12 of Contempt of Courts Act r/w Section 215 of the Constitution of India alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 9.6.2017 passed by this Court in Arb. Appeal No. 5/2003.

(3.) Brief case that can be re-capitulated is that the petitioners along with the (respondent/contemnors No. 1) Sunil Kumar Sethia, Manoj Kumar Sethia (respondent/contemnor No. 2), M/S Kamal Chand Sunil Kumar Sethia (HUF) (represented by Respondent/contemnor No. 3 as its Karta), Smt. Chaina Devi Sethia (Respondent/contemnor No. 4), M/S Sunil Kumar Sethia & Sons, (HUF) represented by Respondent/contemnor No. 1 as its Karta, M/S Manoj Kumar Sethia & Sons, (HUF) (represented by Respondent/contemnor No. 2 as its Karta), M/S K.S. S Financiers (P) Ltd represented by Respondent/contemnor No. 3 as its Director), M/S. Deepak Enterprises (P) Ltd. (represented by Respondent/contemnor No. 2 as its Director), executed a deed of partnership on 1-1-1996 constituting a partnership firm in the name and style of M/S Rajkamal & Co which owns and possess the "Hotel Rajmahal" and the said deed of partnership was duly registered. The deed of partnership agreement provided that the petitioner Devendra Kumar Sethia and Sri Narendra Kumar Sethia and the respondent No. 1, Sunil Kumar Sethia will be the working partners and shall be entitled to look after the day to day affairs of the aforesaid Hotel Rajmahal. Due to the certain disputes between the partners, the matter was referred to the arbitration being registered as Arb. Case No. 2/2002 and in the said case the sole arbitrator vide order dated 22-06-2003 directed that Devendra Kumar Sethia and Sri Narendra Kumar Sethia to be allowed to effectively participate in day to day activities and affairs of the Firm but as the petitioners were not allowed to effectively participate in day to day affairs so they filed an application u/s 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for passing an interim order which was registered as Misc. Case no. 1/2003 in the said Arbitration Case No. 2/2002. The respondent also preferred the petition u/s 16 (2) of the Act before the learned Sole Arbitrator which was registered as Misc case no. 3/2003 in the Arbitration Case No. 2/2002 that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised by the petitioners as the dispute is already under the seisin of another Arbitral Tribunal. Upon hearing both the parties, the sole arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 2/2002 rejected the prayer of the respondent, preferred u/s 16 (2) of the Act by order dated 22.12.02.