CRP No.676 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

: 27.01.2023

PRONOUNCED ON : 03.02.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

C.R.P. No.676 of 2013

and

M.P.No.1 of 2013

V.K.John

....

Petitioner

Vs

1. S.Mukanchand Bothra & HUF (died)

Represented by Mukanchand Bothra

2. A.Philip

3. M.Karishma Bothra

4. M.Gagen Bothra

5. Sandeep Bothra

(Respondents 3 to 5 brought on records as

LRs of the deceased R1-S.Mukanchand Bothra

vide Court order dated 20.09.2021 made in

CMP No.15308 of 2019 in CRP No.676 of 2013) ....

Respondents

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of

Civil Procedure to set aside the final Award dated 21.02.2011 passed by

the “Arbitral Tribunal Consisting of sole Arbitrator Vedavalli Kumar” in

Arbitration No.1 of 2011 between respondents 1 and 2.

For Petitioner

: Mr.Abraham Markos

for M/s.King and Partridge

For R1

: Died

For R2

: No appearance

For R3 to R5

: Mr.M.Gagen Bothra

Party-in-person

1/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.676 of 2013

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the final

Award dated 21.02.2011 passed by the “Arbitral Tribunal Consisting of

sole Arbitrator Vedavalli Kumar” in Arbitration No.1 of 2011 between

respondents 1 and 2.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner is the third party to the Arbitration Award passed by

the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of sole Arbitrator Vedavalli Kumar, in

Arbitration Award No.1 of 2011 between the respondents 1 and 2. It was

obtained by fraud and collusion by the respondents. The first

respondent initiated the arbitration proceeding as against the second

respondent claiming to be a person by name A.Philip and styled as the

legal representatives of the petitioner's uncle one Appu John. The said

Appu John had never appointed any legal representative by name

A.Philip. The sale agreement and the pronotes produced in the

arbitration proceedings also have been fraudulently created by the first

respondent by forging the signature of the late Appu John. The first

respondent never paid any amount to late Appu John.

3. He further submitted that the said Appu John is the petitioner's

2/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.676 of 2013

father's brother. He died on 28.07.2007. He was unmarried and had no

issues. The petitioner is the only surviving legal heir of the said Appu

John. The said Appu John had never appointed any legal representative

by name A.Philip, who is the second respondent herein. The arbitration

proceeding was initiated by the first respondent, in pursuant to the

agreement for sale dated 20.04.2007 said to have been executed by late

Appu John in favour of the first respondent, thereby agreeing to sell

Nungambakkam property admeasuring 8 grounds and 2338 sq.ft. for a

very meager sum of Rs.3,20,00,000/-. In fact, the said property never

belonged to late Appu John. It belonged to the grandmother of the

petitioner and she passed away in the year 1984. The petitioner's father

was her eldest son, who died in the year 1995. The petitioner had filed a

suit in C.S.No.423 of 1995 before this Court as against the said Appu

John and his aunt, for partition of the suit property. This Court had

passed an order of injunction, by an order dated 22.07.1996, in respect of

those properties. In the meanwhile, the said Appu John died on

28.07.2007. Therefore, the said Appu John had no title over the property

in order to execute any agreement for sale as claimed by the first

respondent herein. The petitioner had absolutely no knowledge about

the arbitration proceeding and only from the execution proceeding, when

an attempt was made to execute the Arbitration Award, the petitioner

3/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.676 of 2013

came to know about it through the counsel