Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, A.K. CHAWLA, JJ.
Raman Kapoor - Appellant
Versus
O.P. Kapoor - Respondents
FAO (OS) 373 of 2011
Decided On : 04-02-2019
The Court held that the learned single judge carefully analysed all the circumstances, including the weight given by the arbitrator to the evidence led before the tribunal and noticed that disparate and differential standards of judging evidence was adopted and furthermore, vital documents which had to be considered, were not taken into account. These resulted in findings that no reasonable man could have rendered, placed in such circumstances. This court is of the considered opinion – after considering the overall facts and circumstances, including the oral testimony of all parties, that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose out of a letter dated 15.02.1992 (hereafter referred as Ex. R-34) allegedly written by the appellant to the respondent expressing his desire to not continue as a partner in the firm Kapoor Sons and Co. and requested to dissolve the partnership. The respondents had challenged an award dated 01.05.2005 of the sole arbitrator in the disputes between Raman Kapoor (hereafter referred as “appellant”) and O.P. Kapoor and others (hereafter referred as “defendants”). The disputes were between the appellant on one side being the youngest of the sons and the father O.P. Kapoor and the other three sons Lalit, Arun and Anil on the other side. Sh. O.P. Kapoor, the appellant’s father died during the pendency of the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the learned single judge carefully analysed all the circumstances, including the weight given by the arbitrator to the evidence led before the tribunal and noticed that disparate and differential standards of judging evidence was adopted and furthermore, vital documents which had to be considered, were not taken into account. These resulted in findings that no reasonable man could have rendered, placed in such circumstances. This court is of the considered opinion – after considering the overall facts and circumstances, including the oral testimony of all parties, that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity.
Issues: Whether the learned single judge overreached the jurisdiction conferred by Section 34 of the Act by setting aside the award having regard to the circumstances of the case, and the facts on the record.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the learned single judge carefully analysed all the circumstances, including the weight given by the arbitrator to the evidence led before the tribunal and noticed that disparate and differential standards of judging evidence was adopted and furthermore, vital documents which had to be considered, were not taken into account. These resulted in findings that no reasonable man could have rendered, placed in such circumstances. This court is of the considered opinion – after considering the overall facts and circumstances, including the oral testimony of all parties, that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal without order on costs.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
FACTS AND BACKGROUND
1. In this appeal, the correctness of the learned single judge’s order dated 08.06.2011 is in question, in OMP No. 245/2015 which was a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred as the “Act”). The award of the arbitral tribunal, was set aside by the learned single judge in the impugned judgment. The respondents had challenged an award dated 01.05.2005 of the sole arbitrator in the disputes between Raman Kapoor (hereafter referred as “appellant”) and O.P. Kapoor and others (hereafter referred as “defendants”). The disputes were between the appellant on one side being the youngest of the sons and the father O.P. Kapoor and the other three sons Lalit, Arun and Anil on the other side. Sh. O.P. Kapoor, the appellant’s father died during the pendency of the present appeal. These disputes arose out of a letter dated 15.02.1992 (hereafter referred as “Ex. R-34”) allegedly written by the appellant to the respondent expressing his desire to not continue as a partner in the firm Kapoor Sons and Co. and requested to dissolve the partnership.
2. The following partnership firms were constituted at different times between the parties to the lis:-
- Kapoor Sons and Co. (01.04.1998)
- Continental Films (05.05.1977)
- Reconstituted Continental Film (01.08.1979), lastly reconstituted on 01.04.1982
- Ropas International (10.02.1983)
3. M/s Kapoor Sons and Co., the partnership firm was constituted in 1966 and the appellant was one of the partners though being minor. The firm was later reconstituted by Deed of Partnership dated 01.04.88 and at that time, the partners were O.P. Kapoor (16%), Arun Kapoor (21% share), Lalit Kapoor (21% share), the appellant, Raman (21% share) and Anil Kapoor (21% share).
4. Arun Kapoor, though a partner in Kapoor Sons and Co., shifted to Lima (Peru) and settled there since 1972. The other partners were in Delhi. M/s Continental Films was constituted on 01.08.1979 with Lalit Kapoor (20% share), the appellant (20% share), Sarla Rani (40% share) and Anil Kapoor (20% share). As far as M/s Ropas International is concerned the firm was formed by Deed of Partnership dated 10.02.1983 with the appellant (33.33% share) and Smt. Sarla Rani (33.33%) share.
5. In the year 1989, in terms of the decision of O.P. Kapoor and the other partners, the appellant left India for Lima, Peru for further expansion of the business M/s Continental Films at Peru. It was further decided later, that the appellant should move to Columbia. In Columbia, he established a firm in the name of the M/s Continental De Comercio for the purpose of importing various materials from India through M/s Ropas International. The disputes arose in 1998 when the appellant returned to India and was not allowed to participate in the partnership business of the aforesaid three firms. On 01.05.1998, the appellant filed four suits bearing Nos. 918/1998, 919/1998, 920/1998 and 921/1998 for dissolution and rendition of accounts and for his share in (i) Kapoor Sons and Co (ii) Continental Films (iii) Ropas International and (iv) for partition of residential property No. B-5/13, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and grant of 1/4th share in the same.
6. Since disputes arose, litigation commenced between the parties and ultimately the matter was referred to the Arbitration of Mr. Justice P.K. Bahri (retired judge of this court) by order of this court dated 01.10.1999. In fact, parties also agreed that the disputes with regard to the claim of the appellant of share in residential house No. B-5/13, Safrdarjung Enclave, New Delhi be also referred to arbitration. The appellant filed one statement of claim in respect of all the four disputes, claiming various reliefs and inter alia a declaration that he continued to be a partner in respect of his share, for rendition of accounts and partition of the assets of the partnership firms. So far as the house No. B-5/13, Safdarjung Enclave is concerned, he c
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
