JUDGMENT -D.K. DESHMUKH, J.:---Arbitration Petition No. 148 of 1997 has been filed for passing a decree in terms of the Award dated 3rd April 1995 made by the learned Arbitrator Shri R.R. Chari and numbered as Award No. 121 of 1995. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners and the respondents are closely related. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the husband and wife respectively. Respondent No. 1 is their son. Respondent No. 2 is the wife of their son Mr. Anil. Respondent No. 3 Mr. Arun is their another son. Respondent No. 4 is the daughter-in-law being wife of their son Mr. Arun. Respondent No. 5 is the sister of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 6 is a legal representative of deceased daughter of the petitioners by name Anju Sawhney. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are the business concerns of the family. According to the petitioners an agreement was reached between the parties on 12th November 1994 whereby the parties decided to refer their disputes and differences to a Sole Arbitrator. The Sole Arbitrator made his award, which is dated 3rd April 1995. The parties to the agreement unconditionally accepted the award. On the same day they also executed a deed of partition partitioning the property in terms of the award. There is no petition filed raising objections to the award, within the time allowed by the law. Mr. Sanjay Sawhney, who is the legal representative of the deceased daughter of the petitioners by name Anju Sawhney has filed a petition being Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No. 264 of 1998 praying for an order setting aside the award dated 3rd April 1995. That petition has been filed beyond time and therefore, there is a prayer for condonation of delay in filing that petition. Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 support the petition. The petition has been opposed only by respondent No. 1 Mr. Anil. According to the petitioners respondent No. 1 Mr. Anil is not entitled to oppose the petition because he has already derived and accepted the benefits under the award. Petitioner No. 1 has filed an affidavit dated 3rd September 1997 stating the details of benefits which have been derived by respondent No. 1 Mr. Anil under the award.

2.The learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners submits that in the present case there is a written agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration. The award of the Arbitrator has been accepted by all the parties to the award. Respondent No. 1 has derived benefits out of the award and therefore according to him respondent No. 1 is estopped from challenging the award. In support of this proposition, he relies upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others)1, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 807. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the award does not itself create rights in the immoveable properties, which are dealt with by the award. The award requires documents to be executed by the parties for making declarations/transfers mentioning the award effective and therefore according to the learned Counsel it was not necessary to register the award in terms of the provisions of section 17 of the Registration Act. For this proposition he relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Mrs. Tehmi P. Sidhwa and others v. Shib Banerjie Sons Pvt. Ltd. another)2, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1912. The learned Counsel submits that the parties are closely related. They agreed to refer their disputes to a Sole Arbitrator. The award of the Arbitrator has not only been signed in acceptance by all the parties but has also been acted upon by the parties. The learned Counsel relying upon the observations of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of (Vaidya Harishankar Laxmiram Rajyaguru of Rajkot v. Pratapray Harishankar Rajyaguru of Rajkot)3, 1988(3) S.C.C. 21, submits that considering the close relationship between the parties and their conduct only for technical objection the Court cannot decline making of a decree in terms of the a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document