Delhi High Court
Mudit Mohan Mittal vs Rajesh Mohan Mittal on 31 October, 2019
$~O-34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 31st October, 2019
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 242/2016
MUDIT MOHAN MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate.
versus
RAJESH MOHAN MITTAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Gurpreet Singh Sethi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 25th January, 2016
passed by the learned arbitrator.
2. The petitioner and the respondent are real brothers and they
constituted a partnership firm in the name of M/s Max Can Weld Solution
for manufacture and sale of copper wires w.e.f. 11th November, 2005. The
terms and conditions of the partnership firm were reduced into writing in a
partnership deed dated 17th February, 2006. The aforesaid firm took on rent
a factory premises bearing No. S-16, Badli, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Delhi-
110042 along with shed and basement on monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- from
their father, H.K. Mittal.
3. Disputes arose between the parties with respect to the partnership
whereupon the respondent invoked the arbitration and approached this Court
for appointment of an arbitrator. Vide order dated 09th March, 2007 in
ARB.P. No.367/2006, this Court appointed Mr. Bakhshi Siri Rang Singh,
Advocate as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
4. Vide award dated 25th January, 2016, learned arbitrator awarded
Rs.2,14,378/- to the respondent. The learned arbitrator held the petitioner to
be entitled to Rs.17,994/- towards the capital. The learned arbitrator further
held that all the assets of the firm be divided equally by the parties. Learned
arbitrator held the respondent to be entitled to half of the tenanted premises
i.e. S-16, Badli, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Delhi-110042.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged at the time of hearing that
two issues were framed by the learned arbitrator on 11th September, 2007. It
is further submitted that the respondent amended the statement of claim
thereafter but no additional issues were framed with respect to the division
of the tenanted premises and, therefore, the impugned award is vitiated on
the ground of non-framing of the additional issue.
6. Vide order dated 04th January, 2017, limited notice was issued to the
respondent with respect to the division of the tenanted premises. In that view
of the matter, the findings of the learned arbitrator on issues No.1 and 2 have
attained finality.
7. With respect to the petitioner's objection that no additional issue was
framed by the learned arbitrator, the learned arbitrator has observed on page
No.7 of the award that no additional issue was framed since the prayer was
covered in the third issue of relief. The learned arbitrator further observed
that the petitioner stopped appearing after amendment of the claim.
8. This Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the non-framing
of the additional issue since the petitioner stopped appearing before the
learned arbitrator and no additional issue was required to be framed in the ex
parte proceedings. That apart, there is no infirmity in the well-reasoned
decision of the learned arbitrator holding both the parties to be entitled to the
half share in the tenanted premises considering that both the parties had
equal share in the partnership.
9. There is no infirmity in the award passed by the learned arbitrator.
The petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is,
therefore, dismissed.
10. At this stage, both the parties present in Court along with their
respective counsels agree for reference of this matter to mediation for
demarcating the two portions to be divided in terms of the award.
11. List before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on
08th November, 2019 at 04:00 P.M.
12. Ms. Veena Ralli, Senior Mediator is requested to mediate between the
parties in this matter.
13. Both the parties shall produce the site plan along with their proposed
demarcation and the photographs before the learned arbitrator.
14. If both the parties are unable to agree on the demarcation of the
subject property into two portions, they agree to choose one portion by draw
of lots. The learned arbitrator shall consider this in the meditation
proceedings.
15. List for reporting outcome of the mediation on 20th December, 2019.
16. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties under
signature of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
OCTOBER 31, 2019
ak
