RAJ KUMAR SINGH v. KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH

Mr. Satish Chandra Jha, counsel for the petitioner, however, would seriously 2 contend that as a matter of fact there is no arbitration agreement and the Punchnama being referred to is actually mode of conciliation and not of arbitration. In support of such contention counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi & Ors’ reported in AIR 1998 SC 1297, which should be first looked into on the basis of law applied or ratio decided by the Apex Court. In this case it is the case of the petitioner himself before the court below in his application that “ it is true that both the parties have executed Panchnama on 17.9.1992 to settle dispute (to partition the family property described in the scheduled of the plaint)”. The agreement thus having been admitted, this Court would next look into as to what was agreed and since the agreement is on the record, it can be found therein that the parties had agreed to appoint arbitrator in the following word:- 3 ^^ izFke i{k ,oa f}rh; i{k cgSfl;r drkZ dkjksckjh vius&vius ifjokj ds eksfdj vyg iapx.k dks mijksDr (cid:211)gj ,oa xkWaoksa esa ys[;dkjhx.k dk la; qDr laifr dk caVokjk djus ds fy, fu; qDr djrs gSa rFkk iapx.k dks ;g vf/kdkj nsrs gSa fd ys[;dkjh izFke i{k ,oa f}rh; i{k ds chp tks Hkh la; qDr laifRr gS mldk caVokjk dj viuk iapkV …,okMZ‰ nsa tks izFke i{k ,oa f}rh; i{k dks ekU; gksxk A ** From the above agreement it is clear that there was reference to only conciliation arbitration. That being so, there would be no applicability of the ratio of the aforementioned judgment in the case of K.K.Modi (Supra). In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this civil revision application and as such the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be realized from the petitioner. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar