GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER J&K DEBT RELIEF AND RESTITUTION OF MORTGAGED PROPERTIES ACT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein filed writ petition No. 464/80 on October 9, 1980 seeking relief of quashment of two orders passed by Chairman Debt Conciliation Board Jammu and Appellate Authority under J&K Debtors Relief and Restitution of Mortgaged Properties Act, dated 3.9.1980 and 6.10.1980 respectively. Later on, on November 4, 1980 he filed another writ petition No. 521/80 for quashing the order passed by Chairman Debt Conciliation Board Jammu dated 31.10.1980. Both the petitions came up for orders on December 24, 1982 on which date the petitioner entered into an agreement with respondents Om Parkash, Nek Ram and Mahesh Kumar, for referring the disputes projected in both the writ petitions to the arbitration of S. Mohinder Singh, the then 1st Additional District Judge Jammu. The learned Judge of this court recorded statements of both the contesting parties and in view of their agreement, all the disputes mentioned in the above mentioned two writ petitions were referred to the arbitration of S. Mohinder Singh, who was directed to enter upon the reference and make the award.

(2.) S . Mohinder Singh, arbitrator, entered upon the reference in accordance with the order of this court and as per agreement entered into between the parties and made the award on March 30, 1983. The arbitrator while rejecting the other claims of the petitioner ultimately held that respondents, Om Parkash, Nek Ram and Mahesh Kumar, should pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/ - to the petitioner upon which mortgaged property be treated redeemed. Petitioner not satisfied with the award filed C.M.P. No. 1008/83 under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act for declaring the arbitration agreement dated 24.12.1982 as illegal and void and further prayed for setting aside the award made by the arbitrator.

(3.) IN the above said application petitioner's allegations are that the arbitrator has failed to comprehend the disputes between the parties to the writ petition that non -applicants 1, 2 and 6 against whom reliefs were sought were never made party to arbitration agreement; that the disputes raised in the writ petition could not be made subject matter of arbitration; that the arbitrator has totally ignored his pleadings and misconducted the whole proceedings; that the arbitrator has misconducted in not affording any opportunity to him to produce evidence in support of his pleas; that respondents 3, 4 & 5 could not be the owners of the property; that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct in making assessment of the mortgage money and cost of repairs made by him that the arbitrator was not competent to order his dispossession and that also he has misconducted the proceedings in not inquiring about the claims of S. Baldev Singh who was in possession of the property as tenant. Respondents 3 to 5 have denied the allegations made by the petitioner and according to them the petitioner had engaged a counsel who was appearing before the arbitrator and arbitrator after hearing both sides in detail passed the award. They have prayed for dismissing the application of the petitioner and making the award rule of the Court.