SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Cal) 98

High Court Of Calcutta
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI
PRAMODE KUMAR MITTAL - Appellant
Versus
SRI BHURAMAL CHIRANJILAL MITTAL - Respondent
Matter 36  Of  1977
Decided On : 03/24/1977

An award relating to immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court can be filed in that court, even if the award is not registered under the Registration Act, 1908.

Headnote:

ARBITRATION - FILING OF AWARD - JURISDICTION - AWARD RELATING TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WITHIN JURISDICTION OF COURT - COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN APPLICATION FOR FILING OF AWARD - REGISTRATION OF AWARD - NOT NECESSARY FOR FILING OF AWARD - SEVERABILITY OF AWARD - AWARD DEALING WITH MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE ASSETS - SEVERABLE - AWARD ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE - STAMPING OF AWARD - NOT PROPERLY STAMPED - COURT CAN DIRECT FILING OF AWARD SUBJECT TO STAMPING OF DOCUMENT BY ARBITRATOR.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner and respondents, all belonging to the same family, had disputes relating to business, control, management, and properties. They referred the disputes to arbitration. The arbitrator gave an interim award, including directions regarding immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court. The petitioner applied to the court for filing of the award.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application for filing of the award as the award contained directions regarding immovable property within its jurisdiction. The court also held that the award did not require registration under the Registration Act, 1908, as it did not create, assign, declare, or extinguish any right in immovable property. The court further held that the award was severable and the part dealing with movable assets was enforceable without registration. The court directed the arbitrator to stamp the award properly and put the necessary funds in the first instance.

Issues: 1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for filing of the award. 2. Whether the award required registration under the Registration Act, 1908. 3. Whether the award was severable.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for filing of the award as the award contained directions regarding immovable property within its jurisdiction. 2. The award does not require registration under the Registration Act, 1908, as it does not create, assign, declare, or extinguish any right in immovable property. 3. The award is severable and the part dealing with movable assets is enforceable without registration.

Final Decision: The court directed the arbitrator to file the interim award and/or directions in the court. The court also directed the arbitrator to stamp the award properly and put the necessary funds in the first instance.

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for directing the arbitrator to file the interim award made and published by him on the 6th January, 1977, in this Court.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy in this case, it is necessary to briefly refer to certain facts. Pramode Kumar Mittal, the petitioner herein, and the respondents all belong to the same family, hereinafter referred to as Mittal family. They are all descendants of the first respondent Bhuramal Chiranjilal Mittal. It is not necessary to refer to the actual relationship between the parties. There are several companies and firms which belong to the different parties to which also it is not necessary to refer in detail. The family was also interested in several trusts. Diverse disputes and/or differences arose in the Mittal family relating to and concerning the business of the said firms, trusts and companies and regarding the control and management thereof and also regarding the properties belonging to the parties. With a view to settle the said disputes the same were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri B. P. Khaitan, Solicitor and Advocate, by an arbitration agreement dated the 21st June, 1976. Thereafter, there were several meetings but on the 8th January, 1977 the petitioner received by registered post an interim award and/or directions signed by the arbitrator. The petitioner is asking that the said interim award and/or directions be filed in Court.

( 3 ) ONE of the contentions raised in this application was that the directions sent by the arbitrator was not an interim award and as such was not capable of being filed in Court. Having regard to the nature of the directions given and having regard to the definition of 'award' under Section2 (b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. I am unable to uphold this objection. This objection was also not very seriously pressed on behalf of the respondents, who are opposing this application.

( 4 ) THE next question that requires consideration in this case is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this application for filing of the award, in other words, whether this is the appropriate Court for filing of the award. Under Section2 (c) of the Act Court means a Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the reference if the same had been the subject-matter of the suit.

In para 21 (1) of the award the Arbitrator has directed as follows:"21. (1) Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. has a tenancy right in respect of premises No. 24 Alipore Road, Calcutta which is being used as residential house of members of Mittal family as also in respect of office space at No. 2, Brabourne Road, Calcutta. It has been agreed between the parties that Shri M. L. Mittal and members of his family will be entitled to the tenancy rights in respect of premises No. 24 Alipore Road, Calcutta as also the office space at No. 2, Brabourne Road, Calcutta 1, therefore direct the parties to cause Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. to surrender its tenancy rights in respect of premises No. 24 Alipore, Calcutta as also office space at No. 2 Brabourne Road, Calcutta in favour of Shri M. L. Mittal or his nominee. Shri M. L. Mittal will be entitled to obtain the tenancy rights in respect of premises No. 24. Alipore Road, Calcutta as also office space at No. 2, Brabourne Road, Calcutta from the respective landlords either in his name or in the name of his nominee on such terms and conditions as he may think fit. I direct that the resolutions be passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors of Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. surrendering the tenancy rights in consultation with Shri M. L. Mittal. The implementation of these directions will also reduce expenses of Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. "admittedly there was direction regarding the immoveable property within the jurisdiction of this Court, namely No. 2, Brabourne Road, Calcutta. Therefore, by virtue of




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top