The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to conclusively resolve the issue of representation of the respondent-society before allowing the arbitral proceedings to continue, and the violation of the directions contained in the judgment/order dated 24.01.2023.

JUDGMENT :

(Sachin Datta, J.) :—

IA No. 7233/2023 (for restoration) in ARB. A. (COMM.) 53/2022

IA No. 7132/2023 (for restoration) in ARB. A. (COMM.) 54/2022

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. These are applications seeking restoration of the arbitration appeals which were disposed of vide order dated 30.01.2023. The appeals were directed against the order dated 20.07.2022, passed by the learned Arbitrator on an application filed, inter-alia, under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was sought therein that the applicant therein, being the President of Jai Radha Raman Education Society (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent-society”), be allowed to represent the said society in the ongoing arbitration proceedings.

2. It is the common case of the parties that there has been a rift between the Chairman and President of the respondent-society since they represent two rival sections of the society. The President of the society i.e. Mr. Shantanu Prakash (hereinafter referred to as the “President”) is stated to belong to the “Educomp group” whereas the Chairman of the society i.e the appellant in ARB. A. (COMM.) 53/2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Chairman”) represents the “Raffles group”.

3. In the above background, the learned Arbitrator, while disposing of the aforesaid application filed on behalf of the President of the respondent-society, held as under:

“6. Rule 11 of the Rules & Regulations of the Society empowers the Chairman and the President to jointly nominate a person to represent the Society in legal proceedings. However, it is an admitted case that there is a serious deadlock between the Chairman and President of the Society (JRRES), due to which they have jointly not nominated any person to represent the Society in these proceedings. The power under Rule 11 has neither been utilized nor can it be utilized as there are serious disputes between the Chairman and the President.

7. Counsel for the parties are ad idem that an ex parte award would not be in the interest of the either of the parties and that the proceedings may not to be conducted ex parte.

8. I am of the opinion that the Society should not go unrepresented and undefended in these Arbitration Proceedings. The interests of the Charitable Educational Society ought to be protected as an amount of Rs. 59 Crores along with interest has been claimed against the Society in these proceedings and no Statement of Defense has been filed on behalf of the Society. On two prior occasions, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has already allowed the Applicant (President) to represent the Society to ensure that the Society does not go unrepresented.

9. Under 17(1)(ii)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Tribunal is empowered to pass such interim measures of protection as are just and convenient. There is nothing on record to show that if the Society is allowed to be represented by the President, it would either be ‘unjust’ or ‘inconvenient’ or ‘cause prejudice’ to the Claimant. Since the President would have knowledge about each and every aspect of the various affairs of the Society, I consider it proper to allow the President of JRRES, Sh. Shantanu Prakash, to represent the Society in these Arbitration Proceedings.

10. Accordingly, Application No 01/2022 is allowed to the extent that the President of the Society is permitted to represent the Society JRRES in these Arbitration proceedings.”

4. It was against the aforesaid order that appeals came to be filed assailing the aforesaid order dated 20.07.2022. While ARB. A. (COMM.) 53/2022 was filed by the Chairman of the respondent-society, ARB. A. (COMM.) 54/2022 was filed by the Claimant in the ongoing arbitration.

5. Admittedly, the Claimant in the ongoing Arbitration (Millennium Infradevelopers Ltd.), is also a part of the “Raffles group”.

6. When the aforesaid appeals first came for consideration on 18.08.2022, it was observed by this court in ARB. A. (COMM.) No. 54/2022 as under:

“9. In the connected matte