2012 Supreme(Del) 1539
High Court of Delhi
S. MURALIDHAR
Rajinder Nath
Versus
Prem Nath Motors Limited & Others
OMP. NO. 246 OF 2012
Decided on: 25-05-2012
For the Petitioner:P.V. Kapoor, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Geetika Panwar & Ms. Rashmi Gogoi, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2 - Rajiv Mehra, Sr. Adv. with Sanjay S. Chhabra, R3 - N.K. Vohra, R4A & 4B - Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv. with Balaji Subramanian & Samar Bansal, R5 - Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Jitender Vohra, Advocates.
The main legal point established was the importance of seeking interim reliefs before the Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Headnote:
Arbitration - Interim Measures - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim measures in relation to disputes arising from a Partial Settlement Agreement for division of family businesses and assets. The disputes concerned the ownership and lease of premises and the execution of a joint venture agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court disposed of the petition, directing the parties to file applications before the learned Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act to seek interim reliefs. The Court expressed no opinion on the contentions of the parties and continued the order that 'any commencement of work by Respondent No. 5 would be at his risk' until further order by the Arbitrator.
Issues: The issues involved the execution of the joint venture agreement, possession of the premises, and the authority of the parties to take decisions regarding the assets of the companies.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for the parties to seek interim reliefs before the Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act and refrained from expressing any opinion on the contentions raised.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the parties were directed to file applications before the Arbitrator for interim reliefs.
IA No. 9790 of 2012 (for taking on record the amended memo of parties) For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed. The amended memo of parties is taken on record. The application is disposed of.
1. This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) by Mr. Rajinder Nath seeks interim measures in relation to the disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondents arising out of a Partial Settlement Agreement entered into between the Petitioner and Respondents 2, 3 and 4 for division of the family businesses and assets.
2. The background to the present petition is that late Mr. Prem Nath Bhel together with his sons Mr. Surender Nath, (Respondent No. 2) late Mr. Narender Nath represented by his wife Mrs. Vijay Bhel, (Respondent No. 3), late Mr. Devinder Nath represented by his wife Mrs. Surendri Bhel and his son Mr. Shivinder Bhel (Respondent Nos. 4A and 4B) and the Petitioner Mr. Rajinder Nath conducted business through various companies. Initially, late Mr. Prem Nath Bhel had set up a business of motor car agency and repair. Later, the family floated several companies including Prem Nath Motors Limited (‘PNML’), Respondent No. 1, Prem Nath Diesels Private Limited (‘PNDPL’), Prem Nath Motors Workshop Private Limited (‘PNMWPL’), and four other companies. It is stated that all the family members held shares in the companies and had a direct and legal interest in the assets of the companies.
3. The present dispute concerns the premises owned by PNML and leased to it at Mandir Marg which comprised a large contiguous area consisting of entrance and parking, two storey administrative block, two sheds of about 5000 sq.ft. each and a large shed in the rear of about 35000 sq.ft. The said premises at Mandir Marg has been sub-leased to PNMWPL.
4. The Petitioner claims that his group, which comprises his wife and children, hold 28.4% shares in PNML. The rest of the shares are held by the other three branches of the family of late Mr. Prem Nath Bhel who died on 2nd October 1959. After disputes arose between the four branches of the family in 1988, several proceedings came to be instituted by the family members. In a petition heard by this Court an order was passed on 22nd September 1999 referring the disputes to the sole arbitration of Mr. Justice P.K. Bahri (retired). The learned Arbitrator was requested to decide by way of an interim Award the question of division of assets of the companies so that the parties could receive their respective shares.
5. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings a compromise was arrived at between the parties in the form of a Partial Settlement and an application was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC before the learned Arbitrator for taking the said Partial Settlement on record.
6. On 31st January 2001 the learned Arbitrator passed the following order in the arbitration proceedings: “31.1.2001
Yesterday again efforts were made for bringing about conciliation between the parties and fortunately efforts have succeeded and draft compromise petition has been prepared by the parties and they have agreed to sign the same today and the matter has been taken up. The compromise petition has been signed by all the Groups including their respective counsel. Powers of attorney of Mrs. Mohini Bhel, Mrs. Kiran Aggarwal, Mrs. Meenu Sehgal, Mrs. Gita Dutt and Mrs. Devika Bhel in favour of Shri Surender Nath, already stand filed on record. He has signed as attorney on behalf of them. Shri S.C. Dhanda has the power of attorney on behalf of all members of the said group except Mrs. Kiran Aggarwal who is abroad and he undertakes to file her power of attorney in his favour as soon as he receives the same.
All the aforesaid parties have now stated before me that they will voluntarily and willingly signed the compromise petition and they want that the terms of the said compromise be implemented. I thus take the said compromise petition on record and pass orde