B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise under the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996. While C. M. A. Nos. 2671 and 2672 of 2000 are filed against the common order dated 4-8-2000 passed by the Court of iv Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad in O. P. Nos. 780 and 781 of 1998, C. M. A. No. 2677 of 2000 is filed against the order dated 4-8-2000 passed in i. A. No. 388 of 2000 in the said O. P. No. 780 of 1998, rejecting the plea of appointment of receiver.

( 2 ) THE parties are closely related and they referred the matter to Arbitrators for entering arbitration and rendering the award. The Arbitration Agreement dated 16-5-1998 was entered into to resolve the disputes pertaining to the joint family properties belonging to the parties and particularly, the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent as arrayed in O. P. No. 780 of 1998. Two Awards were rendered by the arbitrators on 31-5-1998 and later pn, they issued a clarification dt. 25-6-1998 stating that the Awards dated 31-5-1998 be read as having rendered on 10-6-1998. Aggrieved by said Award, M/s. M. Manik Reddy and m. Vinod Reddy have filed O. P. No. 780 of 1998 to set aside the award while 5mx. 1a, Amrutha has filed O. P. No. 781 of 1998 to set aside yet another Award. LA. No. 388 of 2000 has been filed by smt. Shashikala and Smt. M. Anasuya Devi to appoint a Receiver. O. P. Nos. 780 and 781 of 2000 have been dismissed upholding the contention of the respondents, while in i. A. No. 388 of 2000 the plea of respondents 1 and 2 to appoint a Receiver was negatived. Aggrieved by the same, the above parties have filed these appeals.

( 3 ) THERE are several items of properties jointly owned by the parties and in view of the disputes, they have referred the matter to arbitration. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following were the issues framed by the Court below: (i) Whether the composition of arbitral Tribunal was not proper and it is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act; as such, the impugned award dated 10-6-1998 passed by it is not valid ? (ii) Whether the petitioners are not given proper notice of arbitral proceedings and opportunity to represent their case? (iii) Whether the Arbitrators have acted beyond the scope for reference of the matter referred for arbitration? (iv) Whether the Award is not supported by reason, as such, bad u/s. 31 of the Act? (v) Whether the Arbitrators have not acted impartially and played fraud on the parties? (vi) Whether the Award is inadmissible and unenforceable in law for want of proper stamp duty and registration? (vii) To what relief?

( 4 ) OUT of the above issues, Issue No. 6 assumes significance, as. only when the award is admissible in evidence, then the other issues can be gone into and as it strikes the root of the matter, we will deal with the said issue first.

( 5 ) IN fact, on the said issue, there is already a Judgment rendered by the Court below, which was a subject matter before this Court in C. R. P. Nos. 487 and 1488 of 1999. The said revisions were filed against the Orders dated 30-3-1999 and 2-4-1999 passed in the Memos filed in O. P. Nos. 780 and 781 of 1998. The order passed by the lower Court that the Award was to be stamped on Rs. 100. 00 and that levy of penalty of Rs. 1,000. 00 + stamp duty of rs. 100/- was enough, was set aside by this court in the above revisions holding that the entire Award must be read as a whole and not piecemeal and then it should be construed as to whether it is an award simpliciter or Award directing partition, in which event, it has to be stamped as an instrument of partition and is also compulsorily registrable. The matter was remitted to the lower Court on that issue and as stated above, even though all the issues have been answered, we are only dealing with issue No. 6 as it strikes at the root of the matter, as, in the event of the award being held as inadmissible, then other is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document