Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9707 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Braj Nandan Singh Son Of Late Gore Lal Singh Resident Of Village Kaithma, At Present Mohalla Girhinda Chowk, Police Station And District Sheikhpura. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Krishnandan Singh Son Of Late Gorelal Singh Resident Of Village Kaithma, At Present Mohalla Girhinda Chowk, Police Station And District Sheikhpura. 2. Raghunandan Singh Son Of Late Gorelal Singh Resident Of Village Kaithma, At Present Mohalla Girhinda Chowk, Police Station And District Sheikhpura. 3. Shyam Nandan Singh Son Of Late Gorelal Singh Resident Of Village Kaithma, At Present Mohalla Girhinda Chowk, Police Station And District Sheikhpura. 4. Smt. Kamla Devi W/O Krishnandan Singh Resident Of Village Kaithma, At Present Mohalla Girhinda Chowk, Police Station And District Sheikhpura. 5. Smt. Meera Devi W/O Raghunandan Singh Resident Of Village Kaithma, At Present Mohalla Girhinda Chowk, Police Station And District Sheikhpura. 6. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/O Shyam Nandan Singh Resident Of Village Kaithma, At Present Mohalla Girhinda Chowk, Police Station And District Sheikhpura. 7. Devbrata S/O Raghunandan Singh Resident Of Village Kaithma, At Present Mohalla Girhinda Chowk, Police Station And District Sheikhpura. 8. Priyabrata S/O Raghunandan Singh Resident Of Village Kaithma, At Present Mohalla Girhinda Chowk, Police Station And District Sheikhpura. 9. Himanshu Son Of Shyam Nandan Singh Resident Of Village Kaithma, At Present Mohalla Girhinda Chowk, Police Station And District Sheikhpura. 10. Sudhanshu Son Of Shyam Nandan Singh Resident Of Village Kaithma, At Present Mohalla Girhinda Chowk, Police Station And District Sheikhpura. 11. Smt. Shardha Devi W/O Braj Nandan Singh Resident Of Village Kaithma, At Present Mohalla Girhinda Chowk, Police Station And District Sheikhpura. 12. Ravi Shankar Son Of Braj Nandan Singh Resident Of Village Kaithma, At Present Mohalla Girhinda Chowk, Police Station And District Sheikhpura. 13. Shashi Shankar Son Of Braj Nandan Singh Resident Of Village Kaithma, At Present Mohalla Girhinda Chowk, Police Station And District Sheikhpura. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6443 of 2012 ====================================================== Patna High Court CWJC No.9707 of 2011 (12) dt.17-01-2013 2 1. Krishnandan Singh @ Krishnandan Prasad Singh S/O Late Gorelal Singh R/O Vill-Kaithma , At Present Mohalla-Girhinda Chowk, P.S. & Distt- Sheikhpura .... .... Petitioner/s
Legal Reasoning
Versus 1. Braj Nandan Singh S/O Late Gorelal Singh R/O Vill-Kaithma , At Present Mohalla-Girhinda Chowk, P.S. & Distt-Sheikhpura 2. Smt. Shardha Devi W/O Braj Nandan Singh R/O Vill-Kaithma , At Present Mohalla-Girhinda Chowk, P.S. & Distt-Sheikhpura 3. Ravi Shankar S/O Braj Nandan Singh R/O Vill-Kaithma , At Present Mohalla-Girhinda Chowk, P.S. & Distt-Sheikhpura 4. Shashi Shankar S/O Braj Nandan Singh R/O Vill-Kaithma , At Present Mohalla-Girhinda Chowk, P.S. & Distt-Sheikhpura 5. Raghu Nandan Singh S/O Late Gorelal Singh R/O Vill-Kaithma , At Present Mohalla-Girhinda Chowk, P.S. & Distt-Sheikhpura 6. Shyam Nandan Singh S/O Late Gorelalsingh R/O Vill-Kaithma , At Present Mohalla-Girhinda Chowk, P.S. & Distt-Sheikhpura 7. Smt. Kamla Devi W/O Krishnandan Singh R/O Vill-Kaithma , At Present Mohalla-Girhinda Chowk, P.S. & Distt-Sheikhpura 8. Smt. Meera Devi W/O Raghunandan Singh R/O Vill-Kaithma , At Present Mohalla-Girhinda Chowk, P.S. & Distt-Sheikhpura 9. Nirmala Devi W/O Shyam Nandan Singh R/O Vill-Kaithma , At Present Mohalla-Girhinda Chowk, P.S. & Distt-Sheikhpura 10. Devbrath S/O Raghunandan Singh R/O Vill-Kaithma , At Present Mohalla-Girhinda Chowk, P.S. & Distt-Sheikhpura 11. Priyabrat S/O Raghunandan Singh R/O Vill-Kaithma , At Present Mohalla-Girhinda Chowk, P.S. & Distt-Sheikhpura 12. Himanshu S/O Shyam Nandan Singh R/O Vill-Kaithma , At Present Mohalla-Girhinda Chowk, P.S. & Distt-Sheikhpura 13. Sudhanshu S/O Shyam Nandan Singh R/O Vill-Kaithma , At Present Mohalla-Girhinda Chowk, P.S. & Distt-Sheikhpura .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.9707 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In CWJC No.6443 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jashawir Singh Arora For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL ORDER 12 17-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Patna High Court CWJC No.9707 of 2011 (12) dt.17-01-2013 3 The parties had entered into an arbitration agreement which was registered on 27.11.2007. Arbitrators were appointed and they prepared the award on 19.4.2009. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner Braj Nandan Singh that the arbitration award was illegally obtained as two out the five Arbitrators have not signed the award. On 17.10.2009 the respondent Krishna Nandan Singh sold some land to Shardha Singh. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that when he approached Krishna Nandan Singh, he was informed that the award has already been finalized, whereas the stand of the respondents is that a copy of the award was supplied to the petitioner, as such he had full knowledge of the award. In any event, an application was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the petitioner objecting to the award. Two orders have been passed by Sub Judge-I, Sheikhpura, in the said case under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The first order dated 5.7.2010 has been passed on the prayer made on the objection petition filed on behalf of Brajnandan Singh praying for stay of the award. The Sub Judge has erred in law in passing this order of status quo as there is no provision to pass any interim order under the Arbitration Act except as defined under Section 9 of the Act. The impugned order is also bad for the Patna High Court CWJC No.9707 of 2011 (12) dt.17-01-2013 4 reason that the court below has taken into account the provision of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing the order of status quo, which is also not permissible under the law and as such the order dated 5.7.2010 is set aside. It may be noticed that once an objection is made to the award, the effect of the award remains in abeyance, and as such perhaps no order is required to be passed for staying the effect of the award. The second order has been passed by Sub Judge-I, Sheikhpura on an application of Krishna Nandan Singh in which he has made a prayer that he may be permitted to sell some of the properties which are subject matter of the award. The application has been allowed by the court of Sub Judge Ist. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reads as follows:- “9. Interim measures, etc., by Court. – A party, may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36, apply to a Court:- (i) purposes for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or a person of unsound mind arbitral the for proceedings; or for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the following matters, namely:- of (ii) (a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the arbitration agreement; (b) securing the subject-matter of the amount in dispute the in Patna High Court CWJC No.9707 of 2011 (12) dt.17-01-2013 5 arbitration; (c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject-matter of the dispute in arbitration, or as to which any question may arise therein and authorizing for any of the aforesaid purposes any person to enter upon any land or building in the possession of any party, or authorizing any samples to be taken or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence; (d)interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver; (e)such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient, and the Court shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it.” On a perusal of the aforesaid Section it is apparent that the court could have only taken interim measure for protection of the property, or of any other valuable or property in custody of any other party for the purpose of protecting the property but, could not have passed the order permitting either party to sell land/property which are subject matter of the miscellaneous case. As such I set aside the order dated 13.5.2011 passed in Misc. Case No.1/2010 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist, Sheikhpura. These two writ applications are accordingly disposed off. (Sheema Ali Khan, J) Patna High Court CWJC No.9707 of 2011 (12) dt.17-01-2013 6 mrl.