Civil Revision No. 4941 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4941 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 16, 2009 Rakesh Kumar and others ........Petitioners Versus Devinder Nath Sharma and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This revision has been filed against the order of the learned lower Appellate Court accepting the appeal filed by the respondents and thereby making award dated 20.1.93 as rule of Court. The respondent No.1 filed application for making award dated 20.1.1993 as rule of Court. The petitioners (objectors) took five pleas: (i) the signatures on the agreement/reference dated 26.9. 92 as well as on the award dated 20.1.93 were obtained under coercion in a police station (ii) the property of Asha Rani wife of objector No.1 Dalip Chand and mother of objectors No. 2 and 3 Rakesh Kumar and Bharat Bhushan was also made a part of the award even though she was not a signatory to the arbitration proceedings (iii) since, under the award immovable property of more than Civil Revision No. 4941 of 2009 2 Rs.100/- was to be transferred the award required registration (iv) the reference whereby two arbitrators were appointed by the respondent and only one was appointed by the objectors was intrinsically bad and (v) the arbitrators misconducted themselves. Two facts are not disputed. Firstly, that on 1.1.93 the objectors wrote a letter to the arbitrators asking them to desist from proceeding with the arbitration since they had lost faith in them and secondly, the fact that the award was typed on stamp paper which was purchased on 20.1.93 and on which the signatures of Dalip Chand, Rakesh Kumar Bharat Bhushan appeared. The letter dated 1.11.93 clearly reveals that the agreement/reference to arbitration predated at least 1.1.93 because otherwise there was no occasion for the objectors to write this letter. Further, if the original signatures on the agreement/reference to arbitration were obtained by coercion; then in the letter dated 1.1.93 the objectors would definitely have mentioned that the appointment was invalid and not that they had lost faith in the arbitrators. Further, still if the signatures on the agreement/reference had been taken under coercion, there is no explanation as to how the signatures appeared on the award dated 20.1.93. Thus, I find no infirmity in the finding of the learned Appellate Court holding that the objectors had not been able to substantiate their allegation that their signatures were obtained under coercion. With regard to question No. (ii) it is not unknown for husbands and sons to purchase property in the name of wife/mother. Secondly, in any case Asha Rani was and still is at liberty to challenge the award on the ground that her property could not have been involved in the award, however, subject to the law of limitation. Civil Revision No. 4941 of 2009 3 With regard to question No. (iii) a perusal of the award reveals that the arbitrators have held the respondent No.1 entitled to get the property transferred and it has specifically been mentioned that the transfer would be effected at his expense. The learned Lower Appellate Court has rightly held that the award has merely declared the rights of the parties and since the transfer has to be under the Transfer of Property Act, obviously the same would be by a registered document after appending the necessary stamp duty. With regard to question No. (iv) learned counsel has relied upon Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In my opinion learned lower Appellate Court has correctly held that Section 10 is applied to a different eventuality and is not at all attracted and that once the parties have agreed to make a reference and have named the arbitrators , the award would be binding. No evidence has been led upon question No. (v) but the allegations with regard to questions No. (ii) to (iv) could have shown the misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. Having held questions No. (ii) to (iv) against the petitioners the answer to question No.(v) must necessarily go against them. In this view of the matter this revision is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September 16 , 2009 sunita