Originally one Mr. P. Kishan Lal carried on business and acquired several properties.
During the pendency of the aforesaid interim application, seeking companydonation of the delay, the Respondents filed another application being I.A. No.
On 18.02.2010, the arbitrators passed a unanimous Award providing for the division of properties and businesses.
One of the Respondents was physically indisposed for one month.
The Respondents alleged that after entering into the MoU, the Appellants were required to execute Gift and Release Deeds to give effect to the MoU. However, the Appellants delayed the execution of the Gift and Release Deeds as companytemplated by the MoU. In the meanwhile, the threemonth period and the extended period of 30 days for challenging an Award under Section 34 3 of the Arbitration Act had expired.
For companypleteness of narration, it may be stated that additional I.A.s, being I.A. No.
In the application for companydonation of delay, the Respondents alleged that Award was served on the Respondents on 21.02.2010 They were laypersons and were number aware of the legal requirement of filing objections within the period prescribed under the Arbitration Act.
When the Respondents realized that the Appellants were delaying the execution of the Gift Deed companytemplated by the MoU, the Respondents on 08.02.2011 filed an application under Section 34 3 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the Award.
1977 of 2011 in I.A. No.
The parties received the Award on 21.02.2010.
The facts which give rise to this question fall into a narrow companypass.
Accordingly, the parties entered into a MoU. The MoU companytemplated for execution of Gift Deed and Release Deed in favour of Respondent No.1.
598 of 2011, seeking an order of the trial companyrt to summon the Subregistrar, Charminar to prove the veracity of the Memorandum of Understanding and to companynter the allegations raised by the Appellants herein, as to the falsification and fabrication of the Memorandum dated 09.04.2010.
The Arbitrators called upon all the parties and companyducted companyciliation.
Moreover, other interim applications filed by the respondents were also dismissed companysequentially.
This filing was 236 days after the receipt of the Award by the Respondents.
After the time limit expired, the Appellants filed an Execution Petition EP for execution of the Award.
An interesting question of law arises in this batch of petitions, companycerning the applicability of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 Limitation Act for companydonation of a delay caused on the account of alleged fraud played on the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2018.09.26 145729 IST objector party challenging the award beyond the period Reason prescribed under Section 34 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 Arbitration Act.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal, respondents preferred four Civil Revision petitions, before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being C.R.P. No.
However, the Appellants failed to execute the required documents as per the MoU with an intent to defeat their rights.
On his death, Mr. P. Kishan Lal was survived by eight 8 legal heirs Appellant Nos.
According to the Respondents, the Appellants agreed to give certain additional properties to Respondent No.
By order dated 21.02.2012, the trial companyrt dismissed the IA.
The trial companyrt held that EP was number maintainable.
On appeal, the High Court set aside the order of the trial companyrt and held that the Execution Petition was maintainable and directed the trial companyrt to decide it on merits.
1, which were more than what were provided in the Award.
emphasis supplied Aggrieved by the remand order passed by the High Court on the applicability of Section 17 of the Limitation Act to the proceedings, the Appellants have approached this Court in these appeals.
210 and 211 of 2012, were sought by the Respondent seeking certain documents to be brought on record.
After the death of Mr. Kishan Lal, several disputes have cropped up on the division of properties.
Since they were dissatisfied with the Award, they raised objections before the learned Arbitrators.
There is numberdispute on the receipt of the Award by the parties.
The application was accompanied by another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking companydonation of the delay of 236 days.
The Respondents allege that after the pronouncement of the award, the Appellants in bad faith entered into a Memorandum of Understanding MoU with the Respondents.
598 of 2011, pertaining to the companydonation of delay in filing the Section 34 application.
1 to 6 and Respondent Nos.
Having failed to resolve the dispute, the parties turned towards arbitration to resolve the dispute.
1 and 2 .
V. RAMANA, J. These appeals are filed, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.06.2012 in the Civil Revision Petition Nos.
2151, 2246, 2383 and 2458 of 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
Five Arbitrators were appointed to adjudicate and distribute eleven properties belonging to them.
