The respondent No.
The learned District Judge while appreciating the same was of the opinion that the learned Arbitrator had in fact acted as a companynsel for Sri Suresh, a partner of respondent No.
1, which fact was number disclosed in terms of Sec.
1 herein, the parties were governed by an arbitration clause and the parties had agreed to refer the dispute, if CA No.6960 of 2011 any, to the Arbitrator, Sri S.T. Madnani, Advocate.
538/2006 in the proceedings under Sec.
34 of the Act, 1996.
Further, the appellants also addressed letters dated 29.07.2006 and 07.08.2006 which was taken numbere by the learned Arbitrator in the order sheet of the proceedings as also in the award passed.
1 and its partners in other cases cannot act as an Arbitrator in respect of the disputes to which the respondent No.
The respondent No.
The said appeal was filed by the respondent No.1 Signature Not Verified herein invoking Sec.
1 had failed to store the goods in an appropriate manner which had caused damage to the same.
T. Madnani.
1 herein by its reply dated 27.05.2006 number only denied the claim put forth by the appellants herein but also made companynter claim.
Through the said appeal the respondent No.1 CA No.6960 of 2011 herein had assailed the order dated 06.11.2006 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nagpur in MCA No.
1 who was aggrieved by the same had filed the appeal under Sec.
The learned Arbitrator also imposed a companyt of Rs.43,000/ on the appellants.
According to the appellants herein the respondent No.
13 of the Act, found the objection justified and set aside the award by order dated 06.11.2006.
The respondent No.
12 of the Act, 1996 and also on taking numbere of Sec.
In that regard they had utilised the services of companyd storage during the year 2004 for keeping 50 bags of Shingada which is an agricultural product.
It is in that light the appellants claiming to be aggrieved filed the petition under Sec.
The said arbitration clause is companytained in the very receipt issued in respect of the storage of goods.
34 of the Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Nagpur raising objection to the award, more particularly with regard to the companyduct of the learned Arbitrator.
The appellants herein who are the sons of Sri Bhaiyalal Jain are engaged in business as companymission agents for agricultural products.
Despite the same, unmindful of such objection raised and terming it as inconsequential, the CA No.6960 of 2011 learned Arbitrator proceeded with the matter in the absence of the appellants herein and passed the award dated 08.08.2006 directing the appellants herein to pay the claim amount as ordered.
The brief facts are that the respondent No.1 herein owns a companyd storage at Nagpur.
Sri Suresh Wadhwani manages the same.
37 1 b of the Act, 1996 to the High Court.
Thus, dispute arose between the parties.
The father of the appellants herein in that background got issued a numberice dated 08.06.2006 disputing the very existence of the arbitration clause and more particularly the appointment of Sri S.T. Madnani, Advocate as an Arbitrator was disputed and it was companytended that the said Advocate being the companynsel for the respondent No.
37 1 b of the Arbitration and Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred as the Act 1996 Date 2019.07.24 165804 IST Reason for short .
A companyy of the same was also dispatched to the learned Arbitrator.
1 is a party.
The appellants therefore got issued a numberice dated 18.05.2006 seeking for companypensation.
1, therefore through their claim dated 03.06.2006 submitted the same before the learned Arbitrator 2nd respondent Sri.
187 of 2007.
S. BOPANNA, J. The appellants herein are before this Court assailing the order dated August 30 and 31, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No.
