Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

26. According to Mr. Nath, the authority of Mr. Rakesh Agarwal to execute the documents on behalf of AIL was apparent as Mr. Rakesh Agarwal was not only its promoter director but was holding 72% shares of the said Company and further his wife Mrs. Ruchi Agarwal without holding any share was its Managing Director.

27. According to Mr. Nath, the petitioners‟ submission that in view of Section 40 of Act, 1996, Order 22 Rule 4 CPC would have no application, was untenable. According to him, in the absence of anything to the contrary in Act, 1996 reliance on provisions of CPC could not be said to be erroneous. He submitted that Order 22 Rule 4 CPC clearly indicated that on the death of one of the defendants, the legal representatives stepped into the shoes of the deceased party and the proceedings would continue from the stage at which the said party expired. Mr. Nath repeatedly emphasised that the proceedings could not commence de novo. In this connection, Mr. Nath referred to the following judgments :-

B) Ramgopal & Anr. v. Khiv Raj & Others reported in AIR 1998 RAJ 98 wherein it has been held as under:-

"2. The plaintiff-respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the deceased-defendant- Govin,d Ram and defendant-respondent No. 3 Moolchand. During the pendency of the said suit, defendant-Govind Ram expired on 29-7-1993. The plaintiff-respondents' No. 1 and 2 filed an application purporting to be under Order 22, Rule 4, C.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. That application was allowed. It may be stated here that in that suit, an ex parte order was already passed against the defendants-Govind Ram and Moolchand because their counsel Hariram pleaded no instructions on their behalf;
(2) The mandate of an arbitrator shall not be terminated by the death of any party by whom he was appointed.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of any law by virtue of which any right of action is extinguished by the death of a person."

44. In the present instance, the Arbitrator while recalling his initial order by which he had granted the legal representatives of Mr. Rakesh Agarwal a right to file a reply/written statement had observed that the legal representatives by virtue of Order 22 Rule 4(2) of CPC were entitled to file a reply/written statement, "only appropriate to the character of the deceased from whom they have inherited the property." In my opinion, this observation of learned Arbitrator is based on a wrong proposition of law as the same is contrary to Sections 18 and 19 of Act, 1996 inasmuch as the Arbitrator was not bound by technical rules of CPC. In any event, I am of the view that even if the Arbitrator was bound by the provisions of CPC, the said test is contrary to even Order 22 Rule 4(2) of CPC. The Supreme Court in Sumtibai and Others v. Paras Finance Co. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 82 has held as under :-

4. The appellants are the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand. A suit was filed by the respondent herein against Kapoor Chand for specific performance of a contract for sale. It was alleged that Kapoor Chand had entered into an agreement to sell the property in dispute to the respondent-

plaintiff, M/s Paras Finance Co. In that agreement Kapoor Chand stated that the property in dispute was his self- acquired property. During the pendency of the suit Kapoor Chand died and his wife, sons, etc. applied to be brought on record as legal representatives. After they were impleaded they filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC praying, inter alia, that they should be permitted to file additional written statement and also be allowed to take such pleas which are available to them. The trial court rejected this application against which a revision was filed by the appellant which was also dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal by special leave.