1 ARBP1069/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1069 OF 2010 Narendra H. Udani and anr. ...Petitioners v/s Mrs Sharda J. Mulji and others ...Respondents Mr S.U. Kamdar, Sr. Counsel with Ms Pooja Patil i/b M/s Law Charter for Petitioners. Ms Rajani Iyer, Sr. Counsel with Mr S. Jagtiani, Mr Jayesh Ashar and Ms L. Crasto i/b M/s K. Ashar and Co. for Respondents. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH J. DATE : 23RD JUNE 2011. 2 ARBP1069/10 P.C. :- 1] Admit. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2] By this petition, the petitioners, who were respondents before the Arbitrators, challenge the award made by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal by the award has directed the petitioners to pay the claimants an amount of Rs.38,22,584/- on account of its shares in the capital investment of the firm with interest. In so far as this part of the award is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, submits that this award is liable to be set aside because it is based on misinterpretation of clause 18 of the partnership deed and for making this award, the Arbitral Tribunal has taken into consideration the document of family arrangement to which the claimants were not a party. 3] The learned counsel appearing for 3 ARBP1069/10 petitioners submitted that the Arbitrators should have considered the contents of clause 19 of the partnership deed for interpreting clause 18. According to the learned counsel, interpretation put by the Arbitrators on clause 18 of the partnership deed is perverse and therefore, this Court can interfere with the award. 4] I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. I find that the interpretation of the clause of partnership deed when the dispute before the Arbitrators is among the partners is within the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. Even if there is an error committed by the Arbitral Tribunal in interpreting the clauses of the partnership deed, it will be an error within jurisdiction. Therefore, it cannot be interfered with by Court hearing petition under section 34 of the Act. In so far as the present case is concerned, I find that the interpretation that has been placed by the Arbitrators on clause 18 is a possible interpretation. The Arbitrators have given reasons 4 ARBP1069/10 in support of their interpretation and therefore, in my opinion, no fault can be found with the interpretation that is placed by the Arbitrators. So far as consideration of the document of family arrangement is concerned, though it is true that the claimants are not a party to that family arrangement, but it is common ground that by that family arrangement, one of the partners by name Mrs Snehalata L. Udani who was also a partner of the partnership firm of which the claimants were partners and who retired from the partnership on the same day as the claimants retired, was also being settled. It is also common ground that this document was on the record of the Arbitrators. In my opinion, therefore, no fault can be found with the Arbitrators relying on that documents. 5] The learned counsel appearing for petitioners has also challenged the award in so far as it awards Rs.41,80,521/- as costs. Perusal of paragraph 36 of the award shows that Rs.15,72,500/- have been awarded as fees of the Arbitrators. In so 5 ARBP1069/10 far as that aspect of the matter is concerned, there is no question of any interference. So far as the next item is concerned, an amount of Rs.25,34,751/- has been awarded towards legal fees from institution of arbitration petition . The learned counsel appearing for respondents, on this aspect of the matter, made a submission that as the petitioners in proceedings before the Arbitrators had claimed an amount of Rs.12,98,000/- towards professional fees and therefore the respondents are willing to restrict the claim to that amount. She further submitted that though she restricts her claim against item No.2 to Rs.12,98,000/-, she is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- because this is the amount which the respondents had to pay to the Arbitrators but failed to pay that amount. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners. In view of the statement made by the leaned counsel appearing for respondents, the figures given in paragraph 36 of the award are modified thus :- 6 ARBP1069/10 (a) Towards fees of Arbitrators :Rs.15,72,500/- (b) Towards legal fees from institution of arbitration petition :Rs.12,98,000/- (c) Towards miscellaneous costs of Arbitrators :Rs. 73,270/- (d) Towards reimbursement of the amount paid to the Arbitrators by the respondents on behalf of petitioners :Rs. 2,70,000/- --------------- Total Rs.32,14,270/- --------------- The award is modified to that extent. 6] It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the Arbitrators have awarded interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. on the amount of costs. The award to that extend is set aside by consent of parties. Petition is disposed 7 ARBP1069/10 off. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private sSecretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH )