MANJU GUPTA Vs. VILAS GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act"), the petitioners seek reference of disputes that had arisen vis-a-vis the respondents, to arbitration, in accordance with Clause 3.15 of a Memorandum of Family Settlement (hereinafter referred to as "MFS"), dated 28 th April, 2007, executed among the petitioners and the respondents, being the members of one family.

(2.) A reading of the MSF reveals that disputes among the petitioners and the respondents, vis-a-vis certain corporate entities being managed by them, had arisen, resulting in CP 31/2007 being filed before the Company Law Board, Principal Bench. In order to settle their disputes and differences amicably, the petitioners and respondents executed the MFS, agreeing to be bound by the terms thereof. The purpose to the MFS was specifically stated, in Clause 1(i) thereof, as being "to reduce in writing the terms and conditions of settlement of disputes and differences as agreed by and between the parties to this MFS and further terms and conditions to avoid any future controversy, disagreement, confusion and misunderstanding". The MFS also manifested the decision, of the petitioners and respondents to seek disposal of CP 31/2007, in terms thereof. It was further recited, in the MFS that the parties thereto would make a joint application, recording the terms of the MFS, for withdrawal of Co. Pet. 31/2007 and vacation of all interim orders passed in the said petition by the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as "CLB"). Insofar as the shareholdings of the parties to the MFS, in the companies, relating to which it was executed, were concerned, clause 2(iii), in the MFS, merits reproduction:

(3.) The MFS, nevertheless, did envisage the possibility of disputes arising among the parties thereto and, in that regard, provided thus, in clauses 3.15 and 3.16: