Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order dt. 18.02.2008 passed by the Court of District Judge, Rajsamand in Execution Case No. 6/2008 by which the executing Court has held that the award dt. 13.01.2006 which is sought to be executed is nullity and cannot be executed. Brief facts of the case are that according to the petitioner, in relation to the lease executed between the director of the petitioner company and the respondent No. 1, a dispute arose and as per Clause 31 of the lease agreement, the matter could have been referred to the Arbitrators named in Clause 31 of the lease agreement itself. By this clause Sarva Shri R.S. Tambi, Madhusudan Vyas and Giriraj Sanadhya were named as Arbitrators. According to the petitioner, when dispute arose and the matter came for consideration of the Arbitrators, then one of the Arbitrators - Shri R.S. Tambi did not come for arbitral proceedings and as per the facts mentioned in the award, he sent his son Shri Ajay Tambi who informed the two other arbitrators that Shri R.S. Tambi does not want himself to be involved in the arbitral proceedings. However, in addition to the above, it is also mentioned in the award that R.S. Tambi's son further informed the Arbitrators that whatever other Arbitrators will decide, Shri R.S. Tambi shall have consent for that award. After saying so, Arbitrator R.S. Tambi's son left the place. During the arbitral proceedings, another arbitrator Shri Madhusudan Vyas also left the place before the Arbitration proceedings could have started and according to the facts mentioned in the award, he left the place by saying that whatever the remaining Arbitrator i.e. Shri Giriraj Sanadhya decides, he will agree for that. In the award in addition to above, it is also mentioned that Shri Madhusudan Vyas stated that he does not want to interfere in any manner in the present proceedings. In this situation, Shri Giriraj Sanadhya alone passed the award dt. 13.01.2006.
(3.) WHEN the above award was sought to be executed by filing execution petition, the respondent No. 1 objected to its executability on the ground of the award being nullity.;