9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arties. It is the specific case of the respondent that father of the petitioner carried on business of film producing in the name and style of M/s. V.R. Pictures. The petitioner, who is also a producer, on the death of his father, continued the business of the father in the same name i.e. M/s. V.R. Pictures from the same business premises. Therefore, on the death of the father, he stepped into shoes of the father and became liable to repay the loan in the capacity of the principal borrower as well. There is no material on record to challenge this contention of the respondent. The petitioner next complains that notice of arbitration proceedings was not served upon him - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the impugned award shows that, on receipt of the complaint from the respondent, IMPPA had called for the comments from the petitioner. When he failed to respond, IMPPA assigned the complaint to the Committee for arbitration. The Committee sent notice of the arbitration dated 17th September, 2007 to the petitioner calling upon him to remain present before itself for the arbitration proceedings - The final notice came to be issued on 24th March, 2008 with a specific intimation to the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals with the dispute which is beyond the statement of claim. The respondent contests the petition contending that the same is barred by the law of limitation and also on merits. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the dispute decided by the arbitral award are as follows:- One Vinod Doshi (since deceased), father of the petitioner, carried on business of film production in the name and style of M/s. V.R. Pictures . He intended to produce a Hindi feature film titled Trishul-The Game of Death . He had approached the respondent a financer, for financial assistance. Tripartite agreement dated 18th June, 2004 was executed between the father of the petitioner, the petitioner and the respondent for rendering financial assistance in which the father of the petitioner was described as the Producer , the petitioner as the Guarantor and the respondent as the financer . Under the agreement, the respondent agreed to provide financial assistance to the extent of Rs. 60,00,000/- payable as under:- Rs.25,00,000/- Amt transferred from picture Deewaar-let s bring our heroes home Rs.35,00,000/- As per the discretion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o note here that during the pendency of the petition, the award was put into execution and one of the properties of the petitioner has been sold. 4. Since the respondent has taken up preliminary objection to the petition that, it is barred by the law of limitation, the same will have to be considered before touching upon the merits of the matter. The impugned award is dated 10th August 2008. The present petition was filed on 26th February 2010. Therefore according to the respondent the same is barred by limitation. The respondent in his affidavit-in-reply points out that, Advocate Gajendra Singh had appeared before the arbitral tribunal on behalf of the petitioner and sought adjournments. The copy of the award therefore had been forwarded by IMPPA to Advocate, Gajendra Singh. The petitioner was thus, throughout, aware of the arbitration proceedings and had knowledge of the award on 15th September, 2009. 5. The petitioner on the other hand disputes that there is delay in filing application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. He, claims that he learnt about the award for the first time in the month of January, 2010, when he received notice of the execution proceedings init ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. 8. In the case of Tecco Trichy (supra), the Apex Court was required to consider efficacy of service of the arbitral award by delivering a copy thereof in the office of the General Manager, Southern Railways. The delivery was acknowledged by someone in the office, probably by the Inwards Clerk. The Chief Engineer received the copy of the award from the tribunal more than a week thereafter. While considering the question of bar of limitation for application for setting aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Apex Court considered the provision of Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, to note that according to it's sub-section (5), the term party used in the provision would be as defined by Clause-(h) of Section 2 of the Act, as being a party to an arbitration agreement . When it came to assign the meaning to the term, party in the context of the State or a Department of the Government, Apex Court held that the term party has to be construed to be a person directly connected with and involved in the proceedings and who is in control of the proceedings before the arbitrator. On the significance and importance of delivery of an arbitral award ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ives the party concerned the right to proceed under Section 34(3) of the aforesaid Act. 10. In ARK Builder's case (supra), the Apex Court while reiterating its decision in Tecco Trichy case, held that the expression party making that application had received the arbitral award from Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, cannot be read in isolation and it must be understood in the light of what is said earlier in Section 31(5) that requires a signed copy of the award to be delivered to each party. Reading of the two provisions together, it is clear that limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) would commence only from the date the signed copy of the award is delivered to the party making an application for setting it aside. On the commencement of the period of limitation, the Apex Court further observed as follows:- 15. The highlighted portion of the judgment extracted above, leaves no room for doubt that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act would start running only from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to/received by the party making the application for setting it aside under Section 34(1) of the Act. The legal position on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vides for arbitration of disputes inter se the members. Undisputedly, all the three parties to the tripartite agreement are members of IMPAA. Mr. Davar, however submits that the agreement under the Articles of Association cannot be extended to the petitioner because his role in the transaction was not that of a producer but it was of a guarantor. 15. In my opinion, there can be no merit in the argument of Mr. Davar. Admittedly, all the three persons to the transaction are members of IMPAA and the Articles of Association of IMPAA provides for resolution of the disputes inter se it's members, by way of arbitration conducted by Sub-Committee of Producers Grievances Cell and In-House Settlement . It is nobody's case that the IMPAA makes any distinction amongst it's members. Therefore, even if the dispute between it's members arises out of any capacity other than strictly that of a producer in the transaction between the parties, there can be no escape from the arbitration clause in the Articles of Association. 16. There is one more reason for rejecting the argument of Mr. Davar of want of Arbitration agreement between the parties. It is the specific case of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
