Case Note & Summary
The Chamber Summons was filed under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to set aside the abatement of Arbitration Petition No. 66 of 1991 and to condone the delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased original petitioners and one respondent on record. The original petitioners, being five individuals, had entered into an agreement for the purchase of land at Peston Sagar, Chembur, in 1964 and 1968. Subsequently, in 1984, an agreement for sale of the property was executed between original petitioners 1 and 3 and original respondents 1 and 2, confirmed by the other petitioners. A supplementary agreement was made in 1986. Disputes arose, leading to an arbitration agreement in 1989 referring the matter to two arbitrators, who made an award on 25 April 1989. On 1 April 1991, the original petitioners filed Arbitration Petition No. 66 of 1991 to set aside the award. The original respondents also filed a petition. By an order dated 10 September 1991, the original petitioners were restrained from dealing with the property. During the pendency of the arbitration petition, several parties died: original respondent no.2 died on 12 June 1997, original petitioner no.1 died on 10 December 1997, original petitioner no.3 died on 12 January 2002, and original petitioner no.2 also died, though the date is not specified. The heirs of the deceased petitioners took steps in a related suit (Suit No. 1562 of 1978) to bring themselves on record, but did not do so promptly in the arbitration petition. As a result, the arbitration petition was dismissed as abated by orders dated 13 September 2005 and 26 September 2005. The applicants, being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased original petitioners, filed this Chamber Summons seeking to set aside the abatement, citing delays of 676 days for petitioner no.2, 1707 days for petitioner no.3, 3200 days for petitioner no.1, and 284 days for respondent no.2. The application also relied on the fact that a Memorandum of Understanding was executed in 2004 involving the property. The judgment does not contain any recorded arguments or the court's reasoning, and the final decision is not included in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the abatement of the arbitration petition should be set aside and whether the delay in applying for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased parties on record should be condoned under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (02) 54
Chamber Summons No. 1649 of 2006 in Arbitration Petition No. 66 of 1991 in Award No. 172 of 1990
Hiralal Thakkar, Vishal Thakkar, Bhavin Gada, S.U. Kamdar, G.R. Joshi, Heena Chheda, Avdhoot Prabhu, Anirudh Hariani
Kantilal Ravji Chheda and Others (Applicants/Proposed Petitioners)
Kesarben Laxmichand Dedhia and Others (Original Respondents and Proposed Respondents)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Chamber summons for setting aside abatement and condonation of delay in bringing legal representatives on record in an arbitration petition to challenge an arbitral award.
Remedy Sought
Applicants seek to set aside the abatement of Arbitration Petition No. 66 of 1991 and condone delays of 676, 1707, 3200, and 284 days in filing the application to bring the legal representatives of deceased parties on record.
Filing Reason
The arbitration petition abated due to the death of some of the original petitioners and respondent no.2, and the applicants, being their legal representatives, failed to apply for substitution within the prescribed time, leading to dismissal of the petition on 13th and 26th September 2005.
Previous Decisions
Arbitration Petition No. 66 of 1991 dismissed by orders dated 13 September 2005 and 26 September 2005 for abatement.
Issues
Whether the abatement of the arbitration petition should be set aside under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the delay in applying for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased parties on record should be condoned.
Judgment Excerpts
The original petitioners were restrained from in any manner dealing with or parting with possession of or alienating or encumbering or creating any title or interest in favour of anyone else or transferring or inducting anyone into or putting up any construction on the said plot of land for a period of two weeks after disposal of the Arbitration Petition No. 66 of 1991.
In para 8 of the affidavit in support dated 27 th June, 2003 filed by the applicant no.15, it was stated on oath that he was the only one of the heirs of the late original plaintiff no.4 who was at all apprised of the facts of the case and able to attend to the matter.
Procedural History
1964-1968: Original petitioners agreed to purchase land at Chembur. 1984: Agreement for sale between original petitioners 1 & 3 and original respondents 1 & 2. 1986: Supplementary agreement. 1989: Arbitration agreement; award made on 25.04.1989. 1991: Arbitration petition No. 66 of 1991 filed on 01.04.1991; Order dated 10.09.1991 restraining original petitioners. 1997: Original respondent no.2 died on 12.06.1997; Original petitioner no.1 died on 10.12.1997. 1998: Chamber Summons in Suit No.1562/1978 to bring heirs of petitioner no.1. 2002: Original petitioner no.3 died on 12.01.2002; Chamber Summons in suit for deletion of plaintiff no.4. 2003: Chamber Summons in suit to set aside abatement and bring legal heirs of plaintiff no.4, allowed on 04.09.2003. 2004: Memorandum of Understanding executed. 2005: Arbitration petition dismissed for abatement on 13.09.2005 and 26.09.2005. 2006: Present Chamber Summons filed seeking setting aside of abatement and condonation of delay.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 22 Rule 9
