Sh.Ramesh Kohli v. J B Kohli

ORDER %

05.03.2015

¶1Thesethree appealshave been filed by Mr. Ramesh.Kohii,the Appellant, against the orders passed by the learned Arbitratorin the disputes arising betweenthe parties. Since the parties are common and the impugnedorders arise from the arbitral proceedings between the parties, these appeals are disposed of by this common order.

¶2The Arb. A. No. 3 of 2015 under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ('Act') is directed against an order dated 24'*^ December 2014 passed by the learned Arbitrator, inter alia, holding that that the learned Arbitrator had jurisdiction to deal with the property situated at 7 & 7A Crossroad, Dehradun ('Dehradun property'). By the impugned order, the learned Arbitrator directed, inter se bidding for the Dehradun property by the parties.

¶3Arb. P. No. 464 of 2014 ought to be numbered as an arbitration appeal ('Arb.A.'). The Registry is directed to register it as an appeal and number it accordingly.This appeal is directedagainst an order dated 31^^ July 2014 Arb.A.Nos. 3/2015 and 6/2015 and Arb.P.No. 464/2014 Page 2 of20 passed by the learned Arbitrator rejecting the prayer of the Appellant for opening the locker No.190 belonging to late Mr. B.C. Kohli with the Punjab National Bank ('PNB'), Dehradun. According to the Appellant, the said bank locker contains, apart from certain movable assets, a Will left by the late Mr. B.C. Kohli.

¶4Arb. A. No.6 of2015 is directedagainstan orderdated 16*January2015, wherebythelearnedArbitratordirecteda thirdpartyto appearbeforehim for proceedingin the saleof theDehradunproperty.

¶5The backgroundto these appealsis that the Appellant,Mr. RameshKohli and RespondentNos. 1 and 2, i.e. Mr. J.B. Kohli and Mr. M.M. Kohli, are the sons oflateMr. B.C. Kohliwho died in New Delhion 15* April 1978.It V is statedthatthe AppellantandRespondentNos. 1and2werecoparcenersof HinduUndividedFamily('HUF')known as B.C. Kohli&Sons (HUF).The said HUF was dissolved on the death of Mr. B.C. Kohli.

¶6Mr. B.C. Kohliownedseveralproperties,includingthe Dehradunproperty and a property at 31, Golf Links, New Delhi ('Golf Links property'). Mr. J.B. Kohlihad filedCS (OS) No.73 of 2005 beforethis Court,inter alia, Page3 of20 1 ' T seeking permanent and mandatory injunction to restrain the Appellant, Mr. Ramesh Kohli from carrying out any construction activity in the propertyat 31, GolfLinks,New Delhi. By order dated 27 April 2007 the said suit was referred to arbitration before Justice S.K. Mahajan. The order passedbythis Courton April2007 readsas under: "NDMC has filed a status report with respect to the suit property, ^ being 31 Golf Links, New Delhi. Mr. Arvind Sah, Advocate, who appears for NDMC, further points out that the NDMC has also initiated action based on the status report filed by them and after following the due process of law, they will take the required action. After some hearing in the matter, learned counsel for the parties agree that all disputes between the parties be referred to an independent arbitrator. Accordingly, Mr. Justice S. K Mahajan, C-271, Defence Colony, New Delhi (Mobile No.9873304200), a former Judge of this Court, is appointed as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences amongst the parties. The arbitrator will be entitled to fix his own fees. Suit stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent directly to the learned Arbitrator. Dasti"

¶7On 18^ October2012, the learnedArbitratorpassed an interimAward. The first paragraph of the interim Award, noting the scope of the dispute Arb.A.Nos. 3/2015 and 6/2015 and Arb.P.No. 464/2014 Page 4 of20 V between the parties reads as under: "Parties hereinabove are the sons and daughter of late Shri BC Kohli. On the death of Shri BC Kohli, there arose disputes between the parties about the properties left behind by him. While Shri JB Kohli and MM Kohli had set up a will stating inter alia that some of the properties had been left by the deceased to them, other parties objectedto the said will. In a suit filed by Shri JB Kohli againstShri \j Ramesh Kohli and MM Kohli, the said three parties agreed that all disputesbetweenthem be referredto an arbitratorfor adjudication. TheHighCourtof Delhi,accordinglyby orderdatedApril 27, 2007 passedin CS(OS)no. 73 of 2005, appointedthe undersignedas the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences amongst the parties."

¶8The learned Arbitratorthen noted that while the claims were pending beforehim, with the consentof all the partiesby an orderdated 4^^ October 2007, all the heirs oflate Shri B.C. Kohliwere made partiesto the reference "so that all mattersand disputebetweenthe heirs in respectof the estateof the deceasedare decidedby the Tribunal".

¶9Before the learned Arbitrator, Mr. Ramesh Kohli in his statement of claim claimed that the property at 31, Golf Links, New Delhi and the Grange, Mussouriewere HUF propertiesand that the Dehradunpropertywas a self acquired property of late Mr. B.C. Kohli. Mr. Ramesh Kohli further denied Arb.A.Nos.3/2015and 6/2015and Arb.P.No.464/2014 Page 5 of20 « ' - ' t' g the stand of Mr. J.B. Kohli and Mr. M.M. Kohli that late Mr. B.C. Kohli by Will dated 4^*^ April 1978 bequeathedhis 1/4^'' undividedshare in the Golf Links property to Mr. M.M. Kohli.

¶10The daughters of late Mr. B.C. Kohli - Ms. Indira Bhatia, Ms. Usha Chatrath and Ms. Ved Sawhney also denied existence of any Will. Accordingto the daughters,the GolfLinks propertywas an HUF property, which had to be dividedunder the provisionsof the Hindu SuccessionAct ('HSA') whereas,the Dehradunpropertywas a selfacquiredpropertyand was to be divided equally amongst the legal heirs. They also contended likewiseinrespectofthe propertyatGrangeMussourie.

¶11However,sincethe propertyat Grange,Mussouriewas the subjectmatter V ofa suit filed by Mr. Ramesh Kohli in Mussourie,it was kept out ofthe arbitral proceedings. Mr. Ramesh Kohli initially informed the learned Arbitratorthat he would be withdrawingthe suit but later on 15"" March 2008,resiledfrom the saidstatement.Therefore,the Mussouriepropertywas keptoutofthe arbitralproceedings.

¶12The applicationfiledby Mr. RameshKohli for terminationof the arbitral proceedingson the ground that it could proceed only between him and Arb.A.Nos.3/2015and6/2015andArb.RNo.464/2014 page6of20 V V Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed by the learned Arbitrator by a detailedorder dated January2009 on the grounds, inter alia, that all the parties had agreed to the matter being decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. On th 13 July 2009, the learnedArbitratorheld thatthe only disputebetweenthe parties was in respectof the propertyat C-27, Friends Colony (East) New Delhi.Therewas no disputethatthe GolfLinksand the Dehradunproperties had to be partitioned in accordance with the HSA. Accordingly, the followingtwo issueswere framedbythe learnedArbitratoronthatdate: "(1) Whether the property bearing no. C-27, Friends Colony

(East), New Delhi was purchasedby Shri BC Kohli as HUF as benami in the name of Shri MM Kohli?

(2) If the Issue no.l is proved in favour of Shri Ramesh Kohli, whetherthe claim made by Shri Ramesh Kohli in this property was barred by time?"

¶13The evidencewas thereafterled by the partiesand argumentswere heard on variousdates. By an interimAward dated 18^^ October2012, the learned Arbitrator discussed the entire evidence and came to the following conclusions:

(i) The property at C-27, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi was not purchasedfor the HUF and was purchasedin a DDA auctionby Ms. Usha Kohli in her individual name. page7of20 to

(ii) As far as the plot at A-201, New Friends Colonywas concerned,it was purchasedbyMr. M.M Kohliinhis individualcapacity,and not as benamiof the HUF.

(iii)In the suit filed by Mr. M.M. Kohli againstMs. Usha Chatrathin 1979, after enteringinto an agreementfor the exchangeofthe two plots, a decree was passed declaringMr. M.M. Kohli as the owner of propertyat C-27, Friends Colony (East). Pursuantto the decree, the sale deed in respectof that propertywas executedin favour of Mr. M.M. Kohli and a sale deed in respect of A-201, New Friends Colony was registered in the name of Ms. Usha Chatrath.

(iv) Therefore, the HUF had not purchased either of the above two properties.

¶14As regards Issue No. 2, it was held that in any event the claim of Mr. RameshKohli in respectofC-27, FriendsColony(East)was barredby time. It had been preferred17 years after Suit No.502of 1981, filed by Mr. J.B. Kohli was dismissedas withdrawnin 1990. Mr. M.M. Kohli thereafter had raisedconstructionon the said propertyand Mr. RameshKohli had not objectedto it. It is only before the ArbitralTribunal('AT')that he made a claimthatthe C-27,FriendsColony(East)propertywas an HUF propertyfor the firsttime on 19**^July2007.

¶15By that time, with the amendmentto Section6 ofthe HSA in 2005, the Page8of20 V' daughters became coparceners in their own right in the same manner as the sons. Accordingly, the learned Arbitrator held that the parties to the proceedingswouldbe entitledto 1/8''^sharein the Dehradunpropertyand the Golf Links property. The interim Award was made in the above terms declaring 1/8^^ share of the each of the parties in the aforementioned properties.It was further held that whether or not the propertiescould be partitionedby metes and boundscouldbe decidedonly afteran inquirywas held into the same.

¶16The interim Award dated 18^'' October 2012 passed by the learned Arbitratordeclaring1/8 share of each ofthe partiesto the aforementioned two immovableproperties,i.e., the Dehradunpropertyand the GolfLinks property,was in the nature of a preliminarydecree in a partitionsuit. It is significantthat the above interimAward dated 18"" October2012 was not challengedby anypartyand consequentlyattainedfinality.

¶17In the interimAwarditself,it was noticedby the learnedArbitratorthat duringthe pendencyofthe arbitralproceedings,an applicationhad beenfiled for openingthe banklockerwithPNB. The learnedArbitratorhad requested the partiesto approachPNB witha copyofthe High Court'sorderdated27"" Page9of20 / /2^ April2007 appointingthe learnedArbitratorto "get a date for openingofthe locker". However, nothing had been done by the time the aforementioned interim Award was passed. The learned Arbitrator thus observed in the interimAwarddated IS'*" October2012; "So, at the present,nobodyis aware as to what are the contents of the said locker and there has (sic) is no questionof dividingthe same. It is only after the lockeris opened and the contentsaremade availablethatany ordercanbepassed". th

¶18On 15 March 2013, the issue regardingthe openingofthe lockerwas consideredby the learnedArbitrator.The learnedArbitratornoticedthat no issue had been raised by Mr. Ramesh Kohli either in respectofthe share certificatesor the bank locker, when the issues were fi-amed on 13'^ July 2009. It was accordinglyheld that these two items were not the subject matter ofthe disputebefore the learnedArbitrator,and therefore,no order could be passed directingthe openingof the bank lockeror the divisionof the sharecertificatesheld inthe name ofthe deceased. The sharecertificates in questionhad also not been placedon record. Therefore,it was not clear whetherthe registrationcontinuedin the name of the deceasedor who was in possessionofthe shares.Therefore,boththe applications,i.e.,one relatingto the openingofthe bank lockerand the otherfor the productionofthe share Page10of20 ! I certificates were dismissed. The above order dated March 2013 was also not challenged by any party.

¶19On 13 May 2014, Mr. Ramesh Kohli filed another application requestingfor the opening of the bank locker as he apprehendedthat late Mr. B.C. Kohli "has left behindhis will in the said locker".It was prayed thataLocalCommissionerbe appointedto openthe locker,take out the Will and produceit beforethe AT by an orderdated 31'^ July 2014. The learned Arbitratordeclinedthe prayerfor reviewingthe interimAwardand held that ifMr. RameshKohli was aggrievedthereby,his only remedy was to file a petitionunderSection34 ofthe Act afterthe passingofthe final Award.The learnedArbitrator,inter alia, noted the submissionsofthe learnedcounsel for the Respondentsthat no party had objectedto the sale ofthe Dehradun property.The partiesalso agreedthatthe propertiescouldnot be partitioned by metes and boundsand that "the only way to partitionthe propertiesis to sell them and distributethe proceeds among the co-owners".The learned Arbitratoracceptedthe aboveplea and held "In my opinion,it will not be a caseofpartialpartitionin casethe same are sold separatelyand the proceeds ofthe saleare distributedamongthe co-ownersinaccordancewiththe shares determined by the Tribunal in the interim Award." Page11of20 I

¶20The learned Arbitrator also noted in the aforementioned order, that on 14^^ May 2014, counselfor Mr. RameshKohli had statedthat his clientwas interestedin purchasingthe Dehradunproperty"at the price indicatedby the intendedbuyerand he may buy out the other co-owners".Time was sought to take instructions on whether Mr. Ramesh Kohli would be interested in purchasingthepropertyand how longhe wouldtaketo paythepricethereof. On 3"^^ June 2014, Mr. RameshKohli failedto informthe learnedArbitrator whetherhewas interestedinpurchasingtheproperty.In thosecircumstances, the casewas adjoumedto 25^^August2014.

¶21Thereafter, an application was filed by Mr. Ramesh Kohli on 24^ December 2014 before the learned Arbitratorpraying, inter alia, that the interse biddingin respectof the Dehradunpropertyshould not proceed.It was contended that Section 36 of the Act did not permit the learned Arbitratorto conductproceedingsby way of executionofthe interimAward and thatcouldonlybe done by a civilCourt.Consequently,it was contended that the learned Arbitratordid not have the jurisdictionto order inter se bidding for the Dehradun property. In para 4 of the applicationit was contended that the learned Arbitrator failed to note the contention that a Will of late Mr. B.C. Kohli was kept in the locker with PNB in Dehradun and till Page12of20 such time it was opened,the learnedArbitratorshouldnot proceedfurtherin the case. th

¶22On 24 December2014 itself, the learned Arbitratorpassed a detailed order, notingthat the interimAward dated 18"" October2012 was followed by a subsequentorderrejectingthe challengemade by Mr. RameshKohlito the interim Award on the ground that the learned Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction.The learnedArbitratorin this order dated 24'*^ December2014 noted that the challengeto the said subsequentorder before this Court also failed. The learned Arbitrator noted that he had already dismissed an applicationfor the openingofthe lockerto ascertainwhetherany Will had been left behindin the locker.The challengeto this orderwas also pending inappealbeforethe HighCourt.

¶23As regardsthe interse biddingin respectofDehradunproperty,it was observedby the learnedArbitratorthat "afterapreliminaryAwardhas been passeddeterminingthe rightsofthe parties,the matterhas to be takento its logicalend so as to decide as to what would be the share/amountthat each party would be getting on partitionof the propertiesand to arrive at the same, eitherthe propertyhas to be sold or ithas to be partitionedby metes and bounds". The learned Arbitrator further noted that "it was at the ATb.A.Nos.3/2015and6/2015andArb.P.No.464/2014 Page13of20 suggestionof Mr. RameshKohli himselfthat insteadof sellingthe property to a thirdpartyand to permitthe same to remainwithinthe family, it would be appropriatethat the partiesmake inter se bidding.With all otherparties agreeing to the same, the Tribunal directed inter se bidding amongst themselves. It was held that if Mr. Ramesh Kohli and any other party or theirrepresentativeswere not presenton the next date,the matteraboutrules decidingas to how the bid would be conducted,would be decided by the Tribunal.The fiirtherhearing was fixed for 16^^ January 2015 for inter se biddingamongstthe parties.As alreadynoted,the orderdated December 2014 has been challengedby Mr. Ramesh Kohli by filing Arb.A. No.3 of 2015.

¶24The learned Arbitratorfurther, by an order dated 16^^ January 2015, ^^S^fivedthe plea ofMr. RameshKohli thattill such time the appealswere pendingin the High Court, Mr. RameshKohli would neitherparticipatein the interse biddingnor wouldhe sell the Dehradunpropertyto athirdparty; and thatthe Tribunaltherefore,shouldnotproceedinthe matter.The learned Arbitratornoticed that the only course open was to sell the property by advertisingthe sale of the property in the newspaper. The parties were directedto give detaileddescriptionsofthe propertiesfor that purpose.The Page14of20 V aboveorderdated 16* January2015 has been challengedin Arb. A.No. 6of 2015. It requires to be noticed that this Court has not ordered stay of the arbitral proceedings.

¶25Ms. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Appellant,Mr. RameshKohli, contendedthatthe scopeofthe disputebefore the learnedArbitratoronly pertainedto the GolfLinks propertyand not to any otherproperty.Therefore,by decidingthe issuepertainingto the sale of the Dehradun property and ordering mjnter se bidding, the learned Arbitratorhad exceededhis jurisdiction.Therefore,the three orderspassed, which are subjectmatterofthe appeals,i.e. the ordersdated 31®^ July 2014, 24* December2014, and 16* January 2015 ought to be set aside by the Court. Secondly, it was submittedthat even assuming the interim Award 18 October2014 has attainedfinality,the learnedArbitratorerred in convertinghimselfinto an executingcourtinrespectofthatAward.

¶26Thirdly,it was submittedthatwiththe learnedArbitratorhavingrejected the challengemade by Mr. Ramesh Kohli to his jurisdictionby filing an application under Section 16(3) of the Act, Mr. Ramesh Kohli had to necessarilywaitfor the final Awardand then questionthe above orderat the Page15of20 \ •V time of challenge to the final Award under Section 34 of the Act. If Mr. Ramesh Kohli were to succeed in that challenge, then the Dehradun property could not be brought to sale prior thereto. However, if the learned Arbitrator's orders on the inter se bidding in respect of the Dehradun propertywere allowedto proceedto theirlogicalend, thenthe propertyitself would not be available by the time the challenge to the final Award succeeded. It is submitted that inasmuch as a fait accompli would be presented, the challenge to the jurisdictionof the learned Arbitrator by Mr. Ramesh Kohli would be rendered meaningless. Accordingly, it is submittedthatthe impugnedorderspassedby the learnedArbitratoroughtto be set aside by the Court.

¶27Ms. Chidambaramlastlysubmittedthat it has been Mr. RameshKohli's case throughoutthat there has been a Will iii the locker of the PNB left behind by late Mr. B.C. Kohli and in terms of the said Will, the entire Dehradun property would come to the share of Mr. Ramesh Kohli. By rejectingthe prayerfor the openingofthe locker,the learnedArbitratorhad ignoreda vital piece ofevidence,which could have a directbearingon the issue pertaining to the Dehradun property. If, indeed there was a Will bequeathingthe Dehradunpropertyin favourofMr. RameshKohli,itwould Page16of20 V '1 be wholly illegal for the said property to be shared equally between the parties.

¶28Countering the above submissions,Mr. Vineet Jhanji and Mr. Gaurav Duggal, learned counsel for the Respondents, pointed out that each of the above issues had already been decided by the learned Arbitrator. This included the question whether the locker should be opened; whether the Arbitratorhad jurisdictionto pass any order in respect of the Dehradun property;and whetheran interse biddingshouldgo on. It ispointedout that with the interim order not having been challenged,the learned Arbitrator onlyproceededin accordancewiththe law to the nextlogicalstep ofthe sale ofthe propertiesso that the sharesofboth the parties,as determinedby the interimAwardcouldfinallybe arrivedat. It is submittedthatthe proceedings ^re similar to the proceedingsin a partitionsuit and thereforeit was but natural that after the shares of the parties were determinedby an interim Award, the learnedArbitratorhad to proceedto the next stage to bring the property to sale to realise those shares.

¶29Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that in the first place, the objections raised by Mr. Ramesh Kohli to the learned Arbitrator deciding on the issue concerning the Dehradun property are Page17of20 V <)o misplaced. It is seen that even before this Court, at the time of passing of the tVi order dated 24 July 2007, the parties including, Mr. Ramesh Kohli agreed that all their disputes could be referred to arbitration. Consequently, it could not be said that the scope of the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator was confined to the issues raised in the suit, which was in fact transferred to him for decision.It is seen that in the various orders passedby the learned Arbitrator from time to time, the consent of the parties to have all the disputes settled by arbitration is evident. First, before the learned Arbitrator it was agreed by the parties that all the heirs of Mr. B.C. Kohli would be made parties. It was further agreed that the learned Arbitrator would determinethe shares of the parties, not only in respect of the Golf Links property,but also the Dehradunproperty.Mr. RameshKohlihimselfappears to haveparticipatedinthoseproceedings.

¶30It is also seen that the earlierchallengeby Mr. RameshKohli regarding the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator who examined the dispute concerningthe Dehradunpropertywas rejected. The challengeto the said order was also negativedby this Court.

¶31It is also seen that the interimAward passed by the learnedArbitrator determining 1/8^^ share of the parties in respect of both the Dehradun Arb.A.T^os.3/2015and6/2015andArb.P.No.464/2014 Page18of20 V propertyandthe GolfLinkspropertyhas attainedfinality.Mr. RameshKohli certainly did not challenge the interim Award. It is, therefore, not open to Mr. Ramesh Kohli to question the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator to determine the shares in respect of the Dehradun property. Likewise, the issue regarding the opening of the locker was also concluded by the order dated March 2003, which was not challenged. Mr. Ramesh Kohli cannot be permitted to reopen that issue now. It will, apart from delaying the proceedings, constitute an abuse of the process of law.

¶32The Court also notes that all the parties before the learned Arbitrator agreed that the properties could not be divided by metes and bounds and the properties necessarilyhad to be sold. Only the modalities of the said sale had to be worked out. At that stage, Mr. Ramesh Kohli himself offered to submit a bid, failing which a third party would be allowed to bid. If Mr. Ramesh Kohli himselfhad suggestedthe possiblemodalityof inter se bidding,it is no longer open for him to now turn around and question the orders of the learned Arbitrator in regard to the inter se bidding amongst the parties.

¶33The Court finds that no error has been committed by the learned Arbitrator in holding that the interim Award was akin to a preliminary decree of partition.In fact the interimAward did determinethe 1/8^*^ share of the Arb.A.Nos. 3/2015 and 6/2015 andArb.P.No. 464/2014 Page 19 of20 ^• It' I parties.The next logicalstep was to determinehow the l/S^*^ share could be realisedfor each oftheparties.This beingthenatureofthe disputesbetween the parties, the steps taken by the learned Arbitrator cannot be said to be 'executing'the interim Award. After a preliminarydecree of partitionis passed,the Courtseizedofthe disputewouldnecessarilyproceedto the next stage, i.e. the final decree. By the time of the final decree,even in terms of the Partition Act, 1893 the learned Arbitrator would have to come to a conclusion,one way or the other,whetherthe propertiescouldbe dividedby metes and boundsor sold, and the saleproceedsrealisedbe dividedamongst the parties.In doingthat,the Courtwouldnot be actingas an executingcourt but as acourtdealingwith adisputepertainingto partitionofthe properties amongst the legal heirs ofthe deceased.

¶34For all the above reasons,the Court finds no merit in any ofthe appeals challengingthe impugnedordersofthe learnedArbitrator.The appealsand the applications are accordinglydismissed,but in the circumstanceswith no orders as to costs.

S. MURALIDHAR, J. MARCH 05,2015 mg Page20of20

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1,2,4 + ' ARB.A.3/2015i&IANo. 873/2015 RAMESH KOHLI Appellant Through: Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Kumar, Mr. Saurabh Seth and Ms. Saloni Choudhary, Advocates. versus J.B KOHLI & ORS Respondents ^ Through:Mr. VineetJhanji,Mr. GauravDuggal and Mr. Imran Moulaey, Advocates. With ARB.A. 6/2015 &IA No.2909/2015 RAMESH KOHLI Appellant Through: Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Kumar, Mr. Saurabh Seth and Ms. Saloni Choudhary, Advocates. versus J. B. KOHLI & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Vineet Jhanji, Mr. Gaurav Duggal and Mr. Imran Moulaey, Advocates. And RB.P. 464/2014 &IA No.17440/2014 RAMESH KOHLI Petitioner Through: Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Kumar, Mr. Saurabh Seth and Ms. Saloni Choudhary, Advocates. versus J.B. KOHLI & ORS. Respondents Arb.A.Nos. 3/2015 and 6/2015 and Arb.P.No. 464/2014 Page 1 of20 Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. k Through;Mr. VineetJhanji,Mr. GauravDuggal and Mr. Imran Moulaey, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR