JAI INDER PAL SINGH Vs. JASVINDER SINGH NARULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the Award dated 16.2.2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for adjudication for this petition are that the memorandum of understanding was entered into between the petitioner/non-claimant (hereinafter referred to as the "non-claimant") and the respondent/claimant (hereinafter referred to as the "claimant") in the month of May 1992. Thereafter, first deed of partnership was duly executed to establish a partnership firm under the name & style of M/s Sanjeevan Hospital on 1.12.1992. A partnership agreement (supplementary) was entered into between the partners spelling out the contributions between the partners and allocation of their respective duties on 14th December 1992. On 23rd August 1993, another deed of partnership (supplementary) was executed between the parties. A lease deed dated 20.1.1994 was executed by Jaimal Singh Namdhari, father of the nonclaimant. New partners, namely, Dr. Jandeep Banga and Dr. Sandeep Banga, were introduced on 1.4.1994. A certificate of registration of partnership firm, M/s Sanjeevan Hospital was issued on 29.3.1995. On 21.3.1998, a family settlement deed was executed and registered by Jaimal Singh, father of the nonclaimant. According to the settlement, he transferred his 1/2 in the land and building in favour of the non-claimant, 1/4th share in favour of Dr. Jandeep Banga and 1/4th share in favour of Dr. Sandeep Banga. On 1st September 1999, Dr. Jandeep Banga voluntarily retired from the partnership. On 24th November 1999, Dr. Jandeep Banga sold his 1/4th share in the land and building to the claimant. On 12th January 2000, sale deeds No. 51, 52 and 53 were executed by the Mandi Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Mandi, in favour of Dr. Sandeep Banga, claimant and non-claimant in respect of the portion of the land and building, which was rented to the Hospital by the coowners. Dr. Sandeep Banga retired voluntarily from the partnership business on 10.7.2003. He relinquished part of his share in the immovable property in favour of the non-claimant. The non-claimant on 27th December 2004 had sent a notice of dissolution of the Firm to the claimant. The non-claimant also got published a public notice in Amar Ujala Newspaper regarding expulsion of the claimant from the partnership business. The correspondence was exchanged between the parties. Since the parties failed to amicably settle the disputes and differences, the claimant issued letter dated 10th May 2005 to the non-claimant for the appointment of the Arbitrator. No reply was sent by the non-claimant. Thereafter, claimant filed an Arbitration Case No.27/05 in this Court, which was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble on 1.7.2005. Both the parties filed separate appeals against the order dated 1.7.2005 bearing Arbitration Appeals No. 1 of 2005 and 2 of 2005. These were decided on 18.8.2005. Mr. D.P. Sood, (Retd.) Former Judge of this Court, was appointed as single member of the Arbitral Tribunal. He was ordered to conduct and adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties and passed arbitration Award as soon as possible. The necessary directions were also issued for the interim measures to be taken by the parties during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. The order dated 1.7.2005 was set aside. The order dated 11.8.2005 passed by this Court in OMP No.388 of 2005 in Arbitration Appeal No.2 of 2005 was ordered to be modified. Mr. Justice D.P. Sood entered into reference. However, later on vide order dated 26.7.2006, Justice D. P. Sood was replaced by Mr. Surinder Sarup (Retd.) Former Judge of this Court as an Arbitrator. He made an Award on 16.2.2009. Hence, these objections.

(3.) Mr. J.S. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate, has vehemently argued that ratio of contribution and ratio of the profit and losses could not be re-determined/re-written by the learned Arbitrator. He has then argued that the impugned Award is beyond the scope of partnership deed. He has further argued that the Award is also against the Public Policy and the learned Arbitrator has misconstrued and misread the evidence placed on record. He has finally contended that the learned Arbitrator has disqualified himself since he was not mentally fit on the date of signing of the Award, i.e. 16.2.2009.