Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Anil Sital Hansrajani and another, who are brothers and sons of the respondent Sital T. Hansrajani, filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an arbitral award dated 22nd September 2009. The dispute related to commercial premises being shop nos. 1 and 2 situated at 46-48, Walka House, Tribhuvan Road (Grant Road), Mumbai, owned by HIMS Botawala Charities. Prior to 1995, the premises were let to one Vinod Agarwal. The petitioners claimed they were carrying on business with Vinod Agarwal, who surrendered the tenancy to the landlords, who then created a fresh tenancy in favor of the respondent on or about 10th October 1995. All rent receipts were issued in the respondent's name individually. The respondent alleged that he was unlawfully evicted from the suit premises by his sons (the petitioners) on or about 21st August 2002. The arbitrator passed an award directing the petitioners to hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondent and pay mesne profits. The petitioners challenged the award on grounds of patent illegality and perversity. The court examined the arbitrator's findings and held that the arbitrator had considered the evidence, including the rent receipts in the respondent's name and the fact that the petitioners failed to prove any tenancy rights. The court found no perversity or patent illegality in the award and dismissed the petition, upholding the award.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Challenge to Arbitral Award - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Scope of Interference - The court considered whether the arbitral award suffered from patent illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 34. The court held that the arbitrator's findings of fact, based on evidence, are not open to reappraisal by the court unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no such infirmity and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1-12) B) Family Law - Family Arrangement - Tenancy Rights - Possession - The dispute between father (respondent) and sons (petitioners) over commercial premises. The arbitrator found that the respondent was the tenant and was unlawfully dispossessed by the petitioners. The court upheld the award directing the petitioners to hand over possession and pay mesne profits. (Paras 2-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the arbitral award dated 22nd September 2009 is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the grounds of patent illegality, perversity, or being against public policy.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the petition and upheld the arbitral award dated 22nd September 2009.
Law Points
- Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- scope of interference with arbitral award
- patent illegality
- perversity
- findings of fact by arbitrator
- family arrangement
- tenancy rights
- possession
- limitation for filing objections
