NARAYAN RAIARAM BANDEKAR AND ORS Vs. PRADIP P MAHATME AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The chosen arbitrator is a relation of one of the parties. Is that fact alone sufficient to revoke the authority of the arbitrator under section 5 of the Arbitration Act or to remove him under section 11 of the Act Relying on the case of Bhuwalka Bros. v. Fatehchand, 1952 AIR(Cal) 294, Mr. Usgaonkar says that even if it could be said that such relationship was known to the parties at the time the agreement was entered into, still the Court would not refuse an application, if the agreement is one to refer future differences to arbitration. Now to Some facts.

(2.) Rajaram N.S.Bandekar (RSB) and his four sons, namely Narayan R. Bandekar (NRB), Laxman R. Bandekar(LRB), Suvarna R. Bandekar (SRB) and Late Anant Bandekar as the members of one family jointy owned a large number of business concerns, private companies, firms or associations of persons generally known as "Bandekar Group of Companies/Firms". The three brothers and their respects spouse and children and Mrs. Deepa Anant Bandekar (DAB) and her minor son, broadly constituted four groups, viz. NRB, LRB, SRB and DAB. In course of time disputes and differences arose amongst these groups, which ultimately resulted in an Agreement of Family Settlement and partition dated March 11, 1987, which has been registered with the sub-registrar of Vasco. The entire settlement and agreement was arrived at the intervention of Pradeep R Mahatme their own auditor and Tax Consultant. After providing for all division of assets and liabilities and after providing for all mutual transfer of interests in various properties and after providing for every contingency, the agreement, in clause 20.10 states as follows :

(3.) On or about August 15,1988, petitioner No. 1 filed a claim before the said Arbitrator (respondent No. 1). Similarly on October 15, 1988, respondent No. 8 filed a claim before the arbitrator. So also on November 2, 1988, respondent Nos. 2 & 4 filed their claim before the said arbitrator. On November 19, 1988, the arbitrator dismissed all these claims of all these persons on the ground that the claim had been preferred individually and not on behalf of each of the groups. It appears that this order was challenged but finally it has been upheld by the High Court. On the same day i.e. November 19, 1988, the arbitrator accepted a fresh reference filed by SRB/DAB Group for execution of the agreement as required under the said agreement and the said reference is at No. 2 of 1988. This reference is still pending.