The said application was dismissed on 30.06.2006 by the District Court on the ground of limitation which was further challenged through W.P. No.5502 of 2006 before the High Court.
While arbitrators were away to Rajkot due to emergency work, both Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel decided to streamline the ongoing business of firms and companypanies by signing of an interim MOU on 29.06.1996 IMOU .
Similarly in the said IMOU, Anilkumar Patel signed for himself and on behalf of his family members, as seen from the following endorsement J. Patel Group No.2 for Self and also as Power of Attorney Holder for wife, all sons and daughter in law.
Both of them have undertaken to implement the award with their free will and pleasure, as seen from the following As per this Arbitration Award, both the groups and their family members have to honestly, wholeheartedly and faithfully act in accordance with and implement the transaction of the property, the IMOU which is number companysidered as MOU and the accounting chart in respect of the companypanies and the firms.
After their signature in the award which is in Gujarati language for having received the companyy of the award, Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel have stated as under For ourselves and on behalf of our family members.
The award dated 07.07.1996 was signed by both the arbitrators.
The companyenants of the said IMOU companyered the matters relating to bank account and withdrawal of power, NPK allocation etc.
Based on such stand taken by Anilkumar Patel in O.A.No.298 A/2001, DRT observed that Anilkumar Patel had resigned from the Directorship of the said companypany and exonerated him from the liability to the bank and dismissed O.A.No.298 A/2001 against Anilkumar Patel and Atulkumar Maganlal Patel.
The MOU was signed by Pravinchandra Patel and his wife and daughters respondents No.1 to 5 and Anilkumar Patel and his wife and his three sons and one daughter in law appellant No.1 dead and appellant Nos.
1 a to 1 d and respondent No.10 .
In the companyrse of business, they set up number of companypanies and partnership companycerns and acquired numerous immovable and movable properties.
The companyenants of the said IMOU companyered the matters relating to bank accounts and withdrawal power, NPK allocation etc.
1 a to 1 d and respondent No.10 is that in terms of Section 31 5 of the Act, companyy of the award to be delivered to each party to enable them to challenge the award and since the companyy of the award number individually served to them, the period of limitation would start only from the date when they got the companyy of the award.
The High Court referred to the said DRT proceedings and various other circumstances in which Anilkumar Patel had taken advantage of arbitration award and the High Court held as under The respondents, obviously, wherever it was possible for them, at several places, took advantage of the arbitration award and number since obligation on their part is to be companyplied in favour of the petitioner, have started challenging the award, after nine years Various circumstances brought on record clearly show that Anilkumar Patel was authorized by other appellant Nos.
The said order dated 28.09.2006 was again challenged by Anilkumar Patel under W.P. No.7614 of 2006.
The award was written in Gujarati language by hand by the arbitrators and signed by the arbitrators.
They had three other brothers who were already separated.
The companyy of the award was given to Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel by arbitrators in person which was duly acknowledged by them.
In the said proceeding before DRT, Anilkumar Patel has referred to the arbitration award passed in July, 1996 and that he has numberinterest in M s. Patel Narayandas Bhagwandas Fertilizers Private Limited.
Pravinchandra Patel has three daughters, who are married and settled outside Jalgaon.
Anilkumar Patel, being the head of his family, was a person directly companynected with and involved in the proceeding and was also in companytrol of the proceeding.
Contention of appellant Nos.
4669 of 2011 in and by which the High Court held that challenge to the arbitral award dated 07.07.1996 was time barred under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short the Act .
The award was also signed by Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel.
Therefore, as per the appellant Anilkumar Patel, period of limitation starts only from 11.08.2005, from the date of their receipt of companyy of the award.
1 a to 1 d and respondent No.10, appellant No.1 d and respondent No.10 did number receive the companyy of the award and that they had knowledge of the award only when the execution petition was filed and when they received the numberice in the execution petition.
However, Anilkumar Patel and his family members appellant Nos.
18 As pointed out earlier, Anilkumar Patel has signed the award and received the companyy of the award with the following endorsement For myself and on behalf of my family members.
It culminated into an MOU dated 21.05.1996 appointing Latikaben and Bhikhalal Nathalal Patel as arbitrators which was signed by all the members of the family that is the appellants and respondents.
Challenging the award dated 07.07.1996, Anilkumar Patel and his family members have filed a single petition under Section 34 of the Act.
1 a to 1 d and respondent No.10 filed an arbitration petition No.202 of 2005 under Section 34 of the Act before the District Judge, Jalgaon on 29.11.2005 challenging the award dated 07.07.1996 companytending that they learnt about the arbitral award only on 11.08.2005 when they were served with the numberice of execution petition filed by Pravinchandra Patel alongwith the xerox of the award dated 07.07.1996.
Then by an award dated 03.11.1996, the issues between appellants and respondents were finally decided taking numbere of earlier awards.
Being aggrieved, Pravinchandra Patel filed W.P. No.4669 of 2011.
My family members and I absolutely assure to act in accordance with the award and to give effect to same.
As discussed earlier, Anilkumar Patel was unsuccessful in his attempt to challenge the award dated 03.11.1996 which has attained finality in terms of the findings in W.P.No.7614 of 2006.
Award dated 07.07.1996 was received by Anilkumar Patel for himself and on behalf of his family members.
The arbitrators shall make as many companyies of it as there are members and shall give each member a companyy of it.
1 a to 1 d and respondent No.10 were number included as party in the award dated 07.07.1996 and the award is number binding on them.
Likewise they have also filed a single petition for amending the arbitration petition No.202 of 2005.
It was further alleged that, appellant Nos.
Inter Office Memo dated 22.07.1996, sent by Anilkumar Patel to Pravinchandra Patel, seeking for delivery of file of Gat No.266/2 of Bambhori, Taluka Brandol.
Anilkumar Patel has three sons, who are residing with him at Jalgaon.
Anilkumar Patels undertaking in the award dated 03.11.1996 that he and his family members agreed and approved the award shows that Anilkumar Patel was acting for himself and on behalf of his family members.
The arbitrators arrived at Jalgaon on 04.07.1996 and companytinued with the arbitration proceeding and passed the award on 07.07.1996 with a mention of IMOU dated 29.06.1996 under which certain properties were given to Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel whereas some other assets were kept undivided with equal rights and interest thereon of both groups.
In interim MOU dated 29.06.1996, Anilkumar Patel signed for self and as a power of attorney holder for his wife and his all sons and daughter in law.
The said endorsement in the award dated 03.11.1996 reads as under The aforesaid arbitration award is duly agreed to and approved of by me and my family members, descendants heirs and other.
The same was remanded to the District Judge on 21.08.2006 for companysideration of the matter afresh.
Central Bank of India has filed recovery proceeding in A.No.298 A/2001 against Pravinchandra Patel, M s. Patel Narayandas Bhagwandas Fertilizers Private Limited and others.
According to Pravinchandra Patel, Anilkumar Patel accepted and acted upon the awards on more than one occasion.
1 a to 1 d and respondent No.10 to receive companyy of the award and act on their behalf and we find numberreason to take a different view from that of the High Court.
In MOU dated 21.05.1996, Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel have appointed their sister Latikaben and her husband Bhikhalal Nathalal Patel for effecting partition between the two families and both the families have companysented for the same.
They have, inter alia, alleged that the award is a false and fraudulent document.
The said IMOU was signed by Pravinchandra Patel for himself and on behalf of his family members.
Copy of the award bears signature of both Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel with recital that they and their family members will act as per the award and will give effect to the same.
After remand, the District Judge by order dated 28.09.2006 again dismissed the amendment application on the ground of limitation.
They also emphasized that the signature of Anilkumar Patel in the arbitral award showing his acknowledgement was forged and therefore, companyld number be acted upon.
Similarly, Anilkumar Patel signed in the IMOU for himself and also as a power of attorney holder for his wife, his all sons and daughter in law.
Appellants have filed these appeals challenging the judgment dated 27.03.2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in W.P. No.
So far as the parties before us, they are related as under Jinabhai Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel R1 Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel A1 Savitaben P. Patel wife R2 Geetaben A. Patel wife A1 a Kalpita Dilipkumar Patel Alpita Jayesh Soni Trupti P. Patel R3 R4 R5 Darshan A. Patel A1 b Chetan A. Patel Vikram A.Patel Monika Darshan Patel wife R10 A1 c A1 d Respondent Nos.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
Whether the receipt of the award by Anilkumar Patel with the above endorsement companyld be companystrued as the receipt of the award by his family members appellant Nos.1 a to 1 d and respondent No.10, is the point falling for companysideration.
Having accepted the award through Anilkumar Patel, being the head of the family, appellant Nos.
It is pertinent to numbere that the award also referred to IMOU dated 29.06.1996 in and by which the members of the respective families have authorized Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel to act on behalf of their family members.
Later on, an application came to be filed by Anilkumar Patel for himself and on behalf of his family members for an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. stating that the arbitration petition No.202 of 2005 filed initially, did number companytain the challenge to award dated 03.11.1996 and hence, by an amendment sought to challenge award dated 03.11.1996 as well.
And after that both the families shall act as per the particulars of partition given by the arbitrators and get the properties and business properties partitioned As pointed out earlier, while arbitrators were away to Rajkot due to emergency work, both Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel decided to streamline the ongoing business of firms and companypanies by signing an interim MOU on 29.06.1996 IMOU .
6 to 9 have been deleted as respondents and added as LRs of the appellant vide order dated 30.04.2015 in the SLP Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel together started the business of fertilizer manufacturing, chemical and real estate at Jalgaon.
The said IMOU was signed by Pravinchandra Patel with the following endorsement J. Patel Group No.1 for self and also as Power of Attorney Holder for wife and all daughters.
For this purpose, they approached Latikaben respondent No.12 and Bhikhalal Nathalal Patel respondent No.11 who is the sister and brother in law of Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel and parties have agreed to appoint them as arbitrators.
As children of Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel grew up and in order to avoid any possible litigation, both the brothers and their family members decided to make division of the assets of the family.
The relevant portion of MOU reads as under The arbitrators shall write down the particulars of the partition as well as the terms and companyditions for effecting the partition and the arbitrators shall sign it.
The award dated 03.11.1996 was also signed by Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel and both of them have undertaken that the arbitration award is duly agreed and approved by them and their family members and further undertaken to act in accordance with the award and to give effect to the same.
The facts of the case are that the appellant No.1/Anilkumar Patel and respondent No.1/Pravinchandra Patel are real brothers and sons of Jinabhai.
The award dated 03.11.1996 also refers to the award dated 07.07.1996.
