Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6 WP-11825-23-J.odt

7. The decree-holders are running pillar to post to enforce the arbitral awards dated 07.07.1996 and 03.11.1996 by way of execution proceedings filed in the year 2005. The judgment assailed its enforceability. The judgment-debtors had impugned the legality and validity of the awards under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and took the matter up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, raising the grounds that the arbitral awards put for enforcement were false, fabricating, manufactured and backdated. The plea was also raised that deceased judgment- debtor Anilkumar did not sign the arbitral awards, and the present judgment-debtors were not the party to the said arbitral awards. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discarded the plea and dismissed the petition on the factum and the limitation. Thereafter, the executability of the arbitral awards has been objected to by raising various objections that would be discussed in the later part of the judgment.

9. The present petitioners filed their say and raised around 15 objections to enforcing the award.

10. Before adverting to the objections, it would be appropriate to mention the attempts of the judgment debtors to assail the award under Section 34 of the Act of 1934. The said assailment went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said petition was registered as Arbitration Petition No.202 of 2015. That petition was filed objecting to the award dated 07.07.1996 on the grounds that it was a false, fabricated, manufactured, and backdated document. It was the contention that the judgment debtors considered that the arbitrators are biased against him. Hence, he orally terminated / revoked the appointment of those arbitrators. Thereafter, he never came to Jalgaon to conduct the arbitration proceeding. By a letter dated 02.07.1996 addressed to the arbitrators, he brought to their notice the instances of their bias, partial and dishonest acts, and thereby asked them that he withdraw his consent for arbitration. However, the Arbitrators did not decide his objections. It was also challenged on the ground that those 8 WP-11825-23-J.odt were against the principle of natural justice. They had amended the arbitration petition No.202 of 2005, raising the grounds that the awards were passed without following the procedure under Chapter V of the Act of 1996. It was induced and affected by their fraud and was in conflict with the public policy of India. The copy of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment passed in a Civil Appeal arising out of the judgment and award of the District Judge passed in the arbitration proceeding No.202 of 2005 has also been placed on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had discussed the facts of the case in detail. The issue of limitation was raised in that proceeding. The Judgment-debtor Anilkumar's legal heirs had a contention that they learnt about the award dated 07.07.1996 on 11.08.2005 on receiving the notice from the Executing Court. The appellants No.1(a) to 1(d) in the said appeal have also contended that they were not the party to the arbitral award. Hence, it is not binding upon them. Besides that objection, they also objected that those are false and fraudulent arbitral awards. It has been observed that Anilkumar had preferred the Writ Petitions from time to time. On dated 13.11.2006, this Court had dismissed a last writ petition No.7614 of 2006 observing that Anilkumar Patel is adopting tactics of approbate and reprobate and acting as per his convenience by denying the knowledge of award dated 9 WP-11825-23-J.odt 03.11.1996 in some proceeding, though in some other proceedings, he relied on the said award and sought to take advantage on the basis of the said award. 10. In so far as the challenge to the award dated 07.07.1996, the District Judge vide order dated 14.02.2011 allowed the application under Section 34 of the Act, holding that it was within limitation. The District Judge set aside the award, holding that number of serious issues have been raised in the application under Section 34 and there is nothing to show that Anilkumar Patel was authorized by other applicants to receive copy of award on their behalf and it cannot be said that appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 have received the award in terms of Section 31(5) of the Act. The decree-holder had impugned the said judgment and award of the District Judge in Writ Petition No.4669 of 2011. By order dated 27.03.2012, this Court set aside the order of the District Judge, holding that the petition filed in the year 2005 under Section 34 of the Act was time-barred. The High Court held that so far as the order dated 03.11.1996, the findings in writ petition No.7614 of 2006 have attained finality, which has foreclosed the right of Anilkumar Patel to challenge the award dated 07.07.1996. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that the High Court enumerated various circumstances to hold that Anilkumar Patel and his family members were well aware of the award dated 10 WP-11825-23-J.odt 07.07.1996. The High Court also relied upon various correspondence between the parties, legal proceedings, etc. to conclude that Anilkumar Patel received the award dated 07.07.1996. Upon those findings, the High Court dismissed the petition as time-barred and a challenge to the award, dated 07.07.1996. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the contents of the award and held that Anilkumar Patel received the award dated 07.07.1996 for himself and on behalf of his family members. He had signed for himself and power-of- attorney-holder for his wife, all sons and daughter-in-law. Hon'ble Supreme Court also remarked on the capacity of Anilkumar Patel to understand and appreciate the arbitral award and make a decision as to whether an application under Section 34 of the Act was required to be filed or not. In such facts and circumstances, in my considered view, service of the arbitral award on Anilkumar Patel amounts to service and other appellants Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10, and they cannot plead non-compliance of section 31(5) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court finally dismissed the appeal.

13. The objection in the ground (G) is that there was no agreement and no appointment of arbitration to the auction of the property, so basically, the award was passed beyond the scope of arbitration. The arbitrators have no power to auction the properties and companies. So, the awards are null and void and not executable. The objection in clause (H) is that the award dated 07.07.1996 is a false, fabricated, manufactured, backdated document, which is called as an arbitral award. The signed copies of both awards were never served on the judgment debtors as required under Section 31(5) of the Act, 1996. The arbitral awards dated 07.07.1996 and 03.11.1996 are false, fabricated, manufactured and backdated documents. The ground No. (J) was about not signing the award dated 07.07.1996, as on that day, Anilkumar was out of the station. Therefore, his signature was forged. It was also objected the award was biased, partial and dis-honest and passed even after informing the arbitrators orally and in writing for withdrawal / cancellation / termination / revocation of the arbitration agreement, and there was no compliance with Sections 13 and 16 of the Act of 1996. The objections in 12 WP-11825-23-J.odt grounds Nos.(L) and (N) were that the principle of natural justice has not been followed and awarded in contravention of Section 10 of the Act of 1996 and objection in ground No.(O) was that the awards are in conflict with the public policy of India since the same is induced by fraud.

14. It is submitted the above objections were not considered in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and ultimately, the validity of the award was not decided. The judgment- debtors objected to the jurisdiction of this Court to execute the award, which is null and void.

15. The lengthy arguments of Mr. Sapkal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on referring to the number of documents may be summarized that the Executing Court can decide the legality and validity of the award and the issue of the delivery of the copies of the award. His entire efforts were to convince the Court that the impugned awards were false, fabricated, manufactured, and backdated. He has vehemently argued that since the awards were false and fabricated, they are null, void, and not executable. His objection seems to be under Section 47 of the C.P.C.