pvr 1 ap154-08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.154 OF 2008 Jayantilal Hiralal Patel. ...Petitioner vs. 1.Dhanlaxmi Kantilal Patel & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.S.B.Shetty, for Petitioner. Mr.K.K.Malpathak, for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 18th November,2011. P.C.:- 1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the petitioner challenges the Award made by the named Arbitrators. The petitioner and respondents are closely related. They are petitioner’s brother, children of brother and widow of deceased brother. It appears that there was a deal signed by all the sharers in the property including the petitioner by which three persons in the community were appointed and authorised to divide the pvr 2 ap154-08 property among the persons who are entitled to the share of the property. Pursuant to that authorisation the Arbitrators who were styled as Panchas made Award dated 4.11.2007 for division of the property. The petitioner in token of having accepted the Award, signed the Award. The Award indicates the amounts that are to be paid inter se by the parties and adjustments in the account books accordingly. The sharers thereafter prepared the account showing what amounts are payable inter se between the parties as also the amounts that are payable to third party. Admittedly, the petitioner signed that statement of account also. The petitioner has now filed this petition claiming that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties. The matter is not arbitrable and that the Award has also not been passed in accordance with the procedure that is laid down by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. So far as existence of the arbitration clause is concerned, the document which is styled as power of attorney clearly shows that there was an authorisation given to three panchas to divide the property amongst the sharers and while doing so take into consideration the wishes expressed by late pvr 3 ap154-08 father of the petitioner in his Will. Sub-section 1 of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act defines the term “arbitration agreement” to mean an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. If one examined the document stayed as ‘power of attorney’ in the light of this definition of arbitration clause, it is clear that for the purpose of dividing the property, which was joint, between the sharers, authority is given to three persons. Thus, this will amount to an arbitration clause. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner that there was no arbitration clause cannot be accepted. So far as the challenge to the Award is concerned, had the petitioner not signed the Award in token of having accepted the Award and had not signed the statement of account which was prepared pursuant to the Award, the petitioner could be heard to say that the Arbitrators did not follow the procedure laid down by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. But once having accepted the Award by signing it and also signing the pvr 4 ap154-08 statement of account which is prepared after the Award, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot be permitted to resile from the Award and now challenge it. In any case, by the Award the dispute between the closely related persons in relation to the division of joint property has been decided by the persons who, it appears, are also related to the parties. Therefore, it will not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the Award in its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The petition is, therefore, disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) ---