Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kaur Sethi & Anr. vs Surinder Kaur on 10 January, 2020
$~ 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 10.01.2020
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 439/2019
RAVINDER KAUR SETHI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate
versus
SURINDER KAUR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Himanshu Thankur and Mr.
Manoj Kumar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
O.M.P. (COMM) 439/2019
1. The present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of
the order dated 28.09.2019 passed by the Arbitrator in the
proceedings pending between the parties. The main grievance of
the petitioner is that Smt. Surinder Kaur is the main respondent but
her son who is her Special Power of Attorney holder is being
permitted to lead evidence by the Arbitrator. Reliance is placed on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Janaki Vashdeo Bhojwani
& Anr. vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 439. Further
reliance is placed on the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this
Court in OMP (COMM) 31/2017, titled as M/s Cinevistaas Ltd.
Vs. M/s Prasar Bharti wherein this Court while examining
various judgments held that the principle of Shah Babulal Khimji
vs. Jayaben D. Kania & Anr. (1981) 4 SCC 8 will apply to the
arbitral proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that it is not open to the Attorney of the respondent to give
evidence in his capacity as an Attorney.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent who has filed a reply
to the petition at the outset submits the present petition is not
maintainable as the impugned order is not an 'Award' which can
be challenged in a petition, under Section 34 of the Act. Without
prejudice to the said objection, he further submits that in any case
the Power of Attorney, Sh. Manmeet Singh is not only the Special
Power of Attorney holder of Smt. Surinder Kaur, but is also the
son of Smt. Surinder Kaur. He submits that his evidence would be
in his capacity as a son of Smt. Surinder Kaur as he was privy to
most of the transactions relating to the controversy in question and
was actually dealing with the property.
3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
4. Since the learned counsel for the respondent has taken a
stand that Sh. Manmeet Singh would only depose in the capacity
of the son of the respondent, in my opinion this Court need not
enter into the question of the maintainability of the petition.
5. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is
disposed of. Sh. Manmeet Singh will lead evidence before the
Arbitral Tribunal deposing not as a Power of Attorney but in his
capacity as the son of the respondent with respect to the
transactions or any other issue related to the properties in question.
6. Since the parties have consented, the question of
maintainability of the present petition is left open.
7. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
IA No.16643/2019
In view of the order passed in the petition above, no further
orders are required in the present application and the same is
accordingly disposed of.
JYOTI SINGH, J
JANUARY 10, 2020
yg/
