9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the arbitrator and legality of the interim award. 2. Justification and legality of the Civil Court's order. 3. Status of impleading applicants as necessary parties. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and Legality of the Interim Award: The appellant contended that the interim award dated 10-10-1995 was beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and outside the scope of arbitration. The agreement dated 27-9-1982 required the builder to complete the construction and deliver 34% of the built-up area, along with car parking spaces and fixtures, to the appellant. The arbitrator directed the appellant to execute and register six sale deeds in favor of the builder or its nominees, which was beyond the scope of the agreement and the disputes referred to arbitration. The court found that the arbitrator ignored Clause 11 of the agreement, which stipulated that the appellant was bound to execute the sale deeds only after his share of apartments were completed and delivered. The arbitrator's actions were deemed to exceed his jurisdiction and constituted a jurisdictional error. The court referenced the Supreme Court's rulings in Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern Engineering Enterprises and Tarapore & Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing that an arbitrator must act within the limits of the agreement. 2. Justification and Legality of the Civil Court's Order: The Civil Court had dismissed AC No. 48/1995 filed by the appellant and allowed AC No. 50/1995, making the interim award the rule of the court. The High Court found that the Civil Court's order was unjust and illegal, as it failed to recognize that the interim award was beyond the arbitrator's jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the arbitrator's interim award was contrary to the terms of the agreement, specifically Clause 11, which required the builder to fulfill certain conditions before the appellant could be compelled to execute the sale deeds. The court concluded that the Civil Court's order could not be sustained. 3. Status of Impleading Applicants as Necessary Parties: The impleading applicants, who claimed to be purchasers of the apartments falling to the builder's share, sought to be made party respondents in the appeals. The court found that the impleading applicants were not parties to the arbitration proceedings or the Civil Court proceedings. The court held that merely because the interim award was in favor of the impleading applicants did not grant them the right to be heard in the appeals. The disputes in the appeals were between the appellant and the builder, and the issues did not concern the agreements between the builder and the impleading applicants. Consequently, the court dismissed the impleading application. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Civil Court's order dated 28-6-2001, and the interim award dated 10-10-1995. The court appointed a new arbitrator, Mr. Justice Kedambady Jaganath Shetty, to adjudicate the issues framed in the arbitration proceedings and pass an award within six months. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
|
