JUDGMENT - KARNIK D.G., J.:---Heard Mr. Bookwalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Respondents and their Advocate are absent when called.

2. In this petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') the petitioner takes exception to the award dated 1st February, 2002 made by Shri Bhavin Dave and Mr. Niren Mehta, two joint arbitrators. Briefly states, the facts are as under :

3. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 are cousins. The respondent No. 2 is the mother of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 herein had filed a suit bearing Suit No. 3659/90 against Sadguna Chimanbhai Shah (mother of the petitioner) and others on the Original Side of this Court. Consent terms were filed by the parties in the said suit which inter alia provide that the nominee directors of Shirom Limited will arbitrate any future disputes if they arise between the parties. By an order dated 23rd September, 1999, the Court decreed the suit in terms of the consent terms. It appears that subsequently disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No. 1 thereupon filed an application bearing Arbitration Application No. 60 of 2001 under section 11 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of the Arbitrators. By an order dated 10th August, 2001. Shri Justice Patankar, the designate of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, passed the following order :-

"There is no dispute that Mr. Shailesh Kothari as nominee director of respondents and Mr. Niren A. Mehta, nominee director of petitioner. I direct them to arbitrate disputes and differences between the parties early. They shall be free to appoint the preceding arbitrator."

4. Mr. Shailesh Kothari who was the nominee of the petitioner did not come forward for arbitration. The respondent No. 1 therefore, filed Arbitration Application No. 221 of 2001 for replacing Mr. Shailesh Kothari by another arbitrator. By an order dated 21st December, 2001. Shri Justice Patankar the designate of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, allowed the application and passed the following order :

"Mr. Bhavin Dave, Chartered Accountant, Room No. 29, 3rd floor, New Amrut Wadi, V.P. Road, Bombay 400004 is appointed as an arbitrator in place of Mr. Shailesh Kothari. He shall be one of the members of the Tribunal and Mr. Mehta and Mr. Dave shall choose the preceding arbitrator and proceed with arbitration. Disposed of accordingly."

It appears that sometime thereafter but before 18th January, 2002, a joint meeting was held by the said two arbitrators. It also appears from the letter dated 18th January, 2002 written by the said joint arbitrators that the respondent placed before them his statement of claims, in a joint meeting of the two arbitrators. It is however, not clear as to when and what place the said meeting was held by the arbitrators. There is no record that the notice of the meeting of the two arbitrators to the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that no notice of such meeting held by the two arbitrators was ever given to the petitioner. In the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent No. 1 he has not specified the date and place of the alleged joint meeting of the two arbitrators. Though in ground No. (L) of the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically averred that no intimation of any meeting of arbitration prior to 29th January, 2002 was ever given to him, the respondent No. 1, in his affidavit in reply has not denied the said averment, clearly indicating that the joint meeting of the two arbitrators in which the claim statement was presented by the respondent was held without notice to the petitioner.

5. On 18th January, 2002, the learned arbitrators wrote a letter to the petitioner and his mother intimating them that respondent has filed a claim statement before them and that the petitioner should file a reply and remain present on 29th January, 2002 at 5.00 p.m. in the staff room of H.R. College of Commerce and Economics. A copy of the claim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document