9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urged on behalf of the counsel for the respondent agreed upon, that really the amount received under the Agreement dated 6.10.2004 was protection money being paid when the buses used to ply through 'area' under the 'control' of the petitioner. Surely, the petitioner is not a Traffic Inspector under the Motor Vehicles Act or any other designated authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore if the petitioner is given money by each bus owner running buses on route no. 212 it can only be because either the petitioner was a 'saint' who was trusted by all the bus owners for disciplining the bus owners or actually the petitioner is a notorious person who was taking money in the guise of the Agreement dated 6.10.2004, and in my opinion, actually it is the latter which the petitioner is and with respect to which aspect one is left in doubt when one reads the clauses of the Agreement dated 6.10.2004 and the reasoning given by the executing court below. The issues which have been raised and decided by the impugned judgment were therefore not decided by the court in which objections were filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation, 1996. An Awa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favour of the petitioner/decree holder and the respondent whereby the petitioner with respect to all private buses which were to operate on route no. 212 in the city of Delhi was to be paid a sum of Rs.100/- per day. There are further stipulations which are mentioned in the agreement dated 6.10.2004 for paying of fines of Rs.250/- to the petitioner and who was to allegedly to pay a part of the same to other bus owners, and which fines were to be imposed on those bus owners who do not act as per 'discipline' by overtaking or by taking short cuts etc etc. 5. The executing court by reference to Sections 23 and 24 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 has held the agreement to be illegal/non est/void by holding that really the agreement pertains to basically protection money being payable by the bus owners to the petitioner. The executing court has also observed that issues which are raised in the agreement effectively make the petitioner a super traffic police man under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and which position is inconceivable in law. Executing court has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght of the above provisions of law, now the court refers to Arbitration Agreement entered into between the parties. This agreement which was executed on 06-10-04 among the parties is in Hindi written Devnagri script. The crux of the agreement is that first party is permitted to operate buses upon route No. 212 and the second party has to pay Rs.100/- per day for every bus and this agreement further stipulates that in case of overtake Rs.250/- has to be paid by bus owners to the first party as fine. Here, second party comprises of bus owners and the first party is an individual. This agreement further stipulates that in case if there is any violation then the first party has a right to exercise force as per the agreement. This agreement further stipulates that the bus owners have to pay to first party money consideration as well as fine etc. so that they could ply their buses on the route. Learned counsel for respondent objects that this agreement is itself void ab initio as against the public policy. He further submits that the amount as mentioned in the agreement is just like a protection money payable by bus owners to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the award for the allotment of the land given under Section 11 is a nullity. It is open to the appellant to raise the invalidity, nullity of the decree in execution in that behalf. Accordingly we hold that the execution proceedings directing delivery of possession of the land as contained in the award is, invalid, void and inexecutable. Accordingly, it is set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent has further relied upon Sunder Dass Vs. Ram Prakash 1977 Rajdhani Law Reporter (SC) 227 and Ramjilal etc. Vs. Ram Pershad etc. 1979 Rajdhani Law Reporter 392. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the arbitration agreement dated 06-10-04 was itself a nullity as its objects and considerations were unlawful. At this stage, the court asked Mr. Kela to submit regarding the said agreement and he submits that there is no illegality. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as supervisor to supervise the routes plied by the buses of respondents and, therefore, he was not doing charity and he is entitled for the amount by the respondents. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. Surely, the petitioner is not a Traffic Inspector under the Motor Vehicles Act or any other designated authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore if the petitioner is given money by each bus owner running buses on route no. 212 it can only be because either the petitioner was a 'saint' who was trusted by all the bus owners for disciplining the bus owners or actually the petitioner is a notorious person who was taking money in the guise of the Agreement dated 6.10.2004, and in my opinion, actually it is the latter which the petitioner is and with respect to which aspect one is left in doubt when one reads the clauses of the Agreement dated 6.10.2004 and the reasoning given by the executing court below. 7. Counsel for the petitioner also sought to urge that objections which were filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the Award by the respondent and which were dismissed, and therefore the executing court had no option but to proceed to execute the Award, however, it is conceded on behalf of the petitioner that the objections filed by the respondent against the Award dated 9.5.2005 were dismissed not on merits but only on the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
