JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal was directed against the final judgment and order dated 8/9th June, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the high Court of judicature at Bombay in Appeal no. 440 of 1996 in Arbitration Suit No. 1904 of 1992 whereby the High Court dismissed the appellants' appeal and upheld the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the appellants' application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 as being barred by the law of limitation.
(2.)The short facts of the case are as follows:-" (1) A partnership firm was formed by three brothers of the Singhania family. The family owned considerable amount of immovable property, which was brought into the firm's business. In 1987, the partnership firm was dissolved by way of dissolution deed as a family settlement. Under the dissolution deed, clause 13 which enabled the parties or any party to go for arbitration in case there was a dispute between them reads as follows:""13. That if at any time any dispute, doubt or question shall arise between the parties hereto or their respective legal representative, either on the construction of interpretation of these presents or respecting the accounts, transactions, profit or loss of business or their respective rights and obligations of the parties hereto or otherwise in relation to the winding up of the partnership, then any such dispute, doubt or question shall be referred to the arbitration of a single Arbitrator. In case, however, the parties are unable to agree upon a single arbitrator, a panel of three Arbitrators shall be appointed, one of them to be appointed by shri Hari Shankar Singhania or failing him by the sixth party, or failing the sixth party by the seventh party, or failing the seventh party, by the eighth party and the second to be appointed by Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania and failing him by the second party and failing the second party by the ninth party and the third to be appointed by Shri Vijaypat Singhania and failing him by the fourth party, provided always that the decision and/or award by the said panel of the arbitrators shall have to be unanimous and in the event of unanimity not being reached by th'e panel of arbitrators, they shall appoint an Umpire whose decision shall be final. All the proceedings, before the sole arbitrator and/or panel of arbitrators shall be governed by the provisions contained in the arbitration Act, 1940 or by any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof. "" (2) Disagreement between the parties took place as to the division of the assets involved in the partnership firm. Therefore, the distribution of the said immoveable properties could not be effected by 31st May 1987 as contemplated by the Deed of Dissolution. Ultimately in February 1988, the three groups each appointed a nominee to work out an arrangement whereby distribution of the said immoveable properties of the said dissolved firm could be made and effected in the manner acceptable to all. The nominees held several meetings but no agreement of distribution could be arrived at. Further it can be observed that there were numerous letters written by both parties to find a way to settle the dispute pertaining to the division of assets involved in the partnership firm which was dissolved. The last letter that was exchanged in this regard was a letter dated 29 September, 1989. "" (3) On May 8,1992, a plaint under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed before the High Court of judicature at bombay by the appellants (1-7 ousted group). On September 19, 1992, respondent no. 1 herein, dr. Gaur Hari Singhania group (contesting respondent nos. 1-9) filed an affidavit in opposition stating and submitting that, the suit filed by the appellant in the High Court is barred by limitation and that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. " (4) It is pertinent to notice that respondent nos. 10-20 supported the claim made by the appellants. A learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court on April 09, 1996 dismissed the arbitration suit of the appellants on the ground of limitation being 50 days beyond the period of three years computed from march 18, 1989. An appeal was preferred by appellant nos. 1-7 and learned judges of the Division Bench of the Bombay high Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation and that oral prayer for condonation of delay will not be entertained by the courts. "" (5) Against this order of the Bombay High court, the appellants have come by way of special leave petition before this Court. Leave was granted on 03. 01.2005 by this court.
(3.)We heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for appellants 1-7, mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 10-20 and Mr. Anil Diwan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1-9.