Case: GEETABEN ANILKUMAR PATEL AND ORS Vs. PRAVINCHANDRA JINABHAI PATEL AND ORS

honestly, wholeheartedly and faithfully act in accordance with and implement the transaction of the property, the IMOU which is now considered as MOU and the accounting chart in respect of the companies and the firms. ........ The aforesaid Arbitration Award I agreed to and approved of by and our descendant guardian and heirs. We undertake to implement the same with free-will and pleasure. After their signature in the award which is in Gujarati language for having received the copy of the award, Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel have stated as under:- ....For ourselves and on behalf of our family members. It is pertinent to note that the award also referred to IMOU dated29.06.1996 in and by which the members of the respective families have authorized Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel to act on behalf of their family members. 22. The award dated 03.11.1996 also refers to the award dated07.07.1996. The award dated 03.11.1996 was also signed by Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel and both of them have undertaken that the arbitration award is duly agreed and approved by them and their family members and further undertaken to act in accordance with the award and to give effect to the same. The said endorsement in the award dated 03.11.1996 reads as under:- The aforesaid arbitration award is duly agreed to and approved of by me and my family members, descendants heirs and other. My family members and I absolutely assure to act in accordance with the award and to give effect to same. As discussed earlier, Anilkumar Patel was unsuccessful in his attempt to challenge the award dated 03.11.1996 which has attained finality in terms of the findings in W.P.No.7614 of 2006. Anilkumar Patels undertaking in the award dated 03.11.1996 that he and his family members agreed and approved the award shows that Anilkumar Patel was acting for himself and on behalf of his family members. 23. Award dated 07.07.1996 was received by Anilkumar Patel for himself and on behalf of his family members. In interim MOU dated 29.06.1996, Anilkumar Patel signed for self and as a power of attorney holder for his wife and his all sons and daughter-in-law. Challenging the award dated 07.07.1996, Anilkumar Patel and his family members have filed a single petition under Section 34 of the Act. Likewise they have also filed a single petition for amending the arbitration petition No.202 of2005. Anilkumar Patel, being the head of his family, was a person directly connected with and involved in the proceeding and was also in control of the proceeding. Being head of the family, Anilkumar Patel would have been the best person to understand and appreciate the arbitral award and take a decision as to whether an application under Section 34 of the Act was required to be filed or not. In such facts and circumstances, in our considered view, service of arbitral award on Anilkumar Patel amounts to service on the other appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 and they cannot plead non-compliance of Section 31(5) of the Act. 24. The High Court has enumerated various circumstances which indicate that Anilkumar Patel was well aware of the award dated07.07.1996 and also relied upon the award in internal communication between the parties and various legal proceedings. Inter Office Memo dated 22.07.1996, sent by Anilkumar Patel to Pravinchandra Patel, seeking for delivery of file of Gat No.266/2 of Bambhori, Taluka Brandol. Anilkumar Patel has stated that in Gat No.266/2 of Bambhori, agricultural land has come to his share and since some dispute has been raised by the party by whom the sale-deed is to be executed, Anilkumar Patel requested to handover the file maintained in connection with the agricultural land mentioned in Gat No.266/2. The said Inter Office Memo clearly shows that even on 22.07.1996, Anilkumar Patel had acted upon the award dated 07.07.1996. 25. Central Bank of India has filed recovery proceeding in O.A.No.298-A/2001 against Pravinchandra Patel, M/s. Patel Narayandas Bhagwandas Fertilizers Private Limited and others. In the said proceeding before DRT, Anilkumar Patel has referred to the arbitration award passed in July, 1996 and that he has no interest in M/s. Patel Narayandas Bhagwandas Fertilizers Private Limited. Based on such stand taken by Anilkumar Patel in O.A.No.298-A/2001, DRT observed that Anilkumar Patel had resigned from the Directorship of the said company and exonerated him from the liability to the bank and dismissed O.A.No.298-A/2001 against Anilkumar Patel and Atulkumar Maganlal Patel. The High Court referred to the said DRT proceedings and various other circumstances in which Anilkumar Patel had taken advantage of arbitration award and the High Court held as under:- ....The respondents, obviously, wherever it was possible for them, at several places, took advantage of the arbitration award and now since obligation on their part is to be complied in favour of the petitioner, have started challenging the award, after nine years..... Various circumstances brought on record clearly show that Anilkumar Patel was authorized by other appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 to receive copy of the award and act on their behalf and we find no reason to take a different view from that of the High Court. 26. As rightly observed by the High Court, Anilkumar Patel has gone to the extent of even disputing his signature in the award dated07.07.1996 by drafting choreographed petition. Having accepted the award through Anilkumar Patel, being the head of the family, appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 cannot turn round and contend that they had not received the copy of the award. The High Court rightly held that ....Receiving the copy by Anilkumar on behalf of himself and respondent nos. 2 to 6, under an acknowledgment, is in terms of compliance of Section 31(5) of the Act and Section 34(3) thereof..... and that the application filed under Section 34 of the Act by Anilkumar Patel and appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 was barred by limitation. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]23. Award dated 07.07.1996 was received by Anilkumar Patel for himself and on behalf of his family members. In interim MOU dated 29.06.1996, Anilkumar Patel signed for self and as a power of attorney holder for his wife and his all sons and. Challenging the award dated 07.07.1996, Anilkumar Patel and his family members have filed a single petition under Section 34 of the Act. Likewise they have also filed a single petition for amending the arbitration petition No.202 of2005. Anilkumar Patel, being the head of his family, was a person directly connected with and involved in the proceeding and was also in control of the proceeding. Being head of the family, Anilkumar Patel would have been the best person to understand and appreciate the arbitral award and take a decision as to whether an application under Section 34 of the Act was required to be filed or not. In such facts and circumstances, in our considered view, service of arbitral award on Anilkumar Patel amounts to service on the other appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 and they cannot pleade of Section 31(5) of the Act26. As rightly observed by the High Court, Anilkumar Patel has gone to the extent of even disputing his signature in the award dated07.07.1996 by drafting choreographed petition. Having accepted the award through Anilkumar Patel, being the head of the family, appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 cannot turn round and contend that they had not received the copy of the award. The High Court rightly held that ....Receiving the copy by Anilkumar on behalf of himself and respondent nos. 2 to 6, under an acknowledgment, is in terms ofe of Section 31(5) of the Actand Section 34(3) thereof..... and that the application filed under Section 34 of the Act by Anilkumar Patel and appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 was barred by limitation. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment24. The High Court has enumerated various circumstances which indicate that Anilkumar Patel was well aware of the award dated07.07.1996 and also relied upon the award in internal communication between the parties and various legal proceedings. Inter Office Memo dated 22.07.1996, sent by Anilkumar Patel to Pravinchandra Patel, seeking for delivery of file of Gat No.266/2 of Bambhori, Taluka Brandol. Anilkumar Patel has stated that in Gat No.266/2 of Bambhori, agricultural land has come to his share and since some dispute has been raised by the party by whom thed is to be executed, Anilkumar Patel requested to handover the file maintained in connection with the agricultural land mentioned in Gat No.266/2. The said Inter Office Memo clearly shows that even on 22.07.1996, Anilkumar Patel had acted upon the award dated 07.07.1996Various circumstances brought on record clearly show that Anilkumar Patel was authorized by other appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 to receive copy of the award and act on their behalf and we find no reason to take a different view from that of the High Court.