PNP 1 ARBAP207-07=26.8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.207 OF 2007 Batliboi Ltd. and others ..Applicants. Vs. Dhanus Technologies Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr. Rishit P. Badiani i/b M/s. Hariani & Co. for the Applicants. Mr. Naushad Engineer with Ms. Melinda Colaco i/b Desai, Desai and Carrimjee for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. 26 August 2010. P.C. : This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The disputes and differences are alleged to have arisen out of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 16 September 2006. The Memorandum of Understanding has been entered into by the First PNP 2 ARBAP207-07=26.8 Applicant which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and by the Second Applicant on his behalf and on behalf of his “ family . The Memorandum of Understanding has been signed by the ” Second Applicant for and on behalf of Bhogilal Family . Who “ ” constitutes the family has not been set out in the Memorandum of Understanding. The Memorandum of Understanding does not state that the Second Applicant holds a power of attorney executed by stated members of his family. The Arbitration Application has been filed by nine applicants. Of these nine applicants, Applicants 3 to 9 are not parties to the Memorandum of Understanding. Applicants 7 and 8 are, as a matter of fact companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. Applicants 3 to 9 to the Arbitration Application are clearly not parties to the arbitration agreement. The contention of the Applicants is that the Memorandum of Understanding was entered into by the Second Applicant on behalf of the members of his family. The submission cannot be accepted for the reasons already mentioned earlier viz. that the Memorandum of Understanding itself does not define, the members of the family on whose behalf the PNP 3 ARBAP207-07=26.8 Second Applicant had purported to enter into the agreement. That apart as already noted earlier, two of the Applicants are companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, who in any case cannot be even suggested to be members of the family. In these circumstances, and for the reasons already noted, there is no arbitration agreement between Applicants 3 to 9 and the Respondent. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, however, submits that the disputes and differences between the First and the Second Applicant and the Respondent should and can be referred to arbitration. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has no objection, however, reserving the rights of the Respondent to urge all appropriate defences including with reference to the validity of the agreement, before the arbitrator. In view of the aforesaid position, the disputes and differences arising out of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 16 September 2006 as between the First and Second Applicants, and the Respondent are referred to the arbitration of Smt. Justice K.K. Baam, Former Judge of this Court, who shall act as sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and PNP 4 ARBAP207-07=26.8 Conciliation Act 1996. The Arbitration Application is accordingly disposed of. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. The Respondent would be at liberty to raise a counter claim, if any. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)