LexNARAYAN PRASAD LOHIA versus NIKUNJ KUMAR LOHIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
· ...
~
.. '.: 'J::,
' . [2008] 16:S.G.R 640·.', :. ·
, ,
~··
. I
·. : ; ·.
. 1. ·
.. ,,, . NARAYAN .. PRASAD .. ~OHIA·I -~:i
.
~1-
~-, ...
. ' .. \l '"!·;" ~ -:,~.
'. I I
NIKUNJ KUMAR LOHIA · :1
(Civil Appeal No. 6753 of 2008)
~
•
~ ,.O! '
•
• ~ •: '' .;
:
;,~: i \ ; •
• ~ F '
• •
•,
:.,, •
I
:
.-., ' < ~-.,,
~
.. ··'·
1•
.. .... NQVE;.MBER_ ~s .. 29oa .: .....• >·· ..
'•·. [tA'RON CHAf.tERJEE .. ANb· AFTAB.At.AM;·JJ.J
·.
:
. ·}')-:-
-~
,~-n'
..... ·: .... ~-~; ' . : .
.; ..
J
·~.
.-~·; .. ;~ .. ·
......
· . Arbitration.-:- Arbitration award;__ Execution of - Award in .
terms of family settlement - Set aside by High Court on
C
objection from two of the parties to the settlement - Appeals
against the same dismissed as infructuous in terms of out of
court settlement between the parties - Application for
execution of the award - Dismissed by High Court holding
that the award was nofexisting - On appeal, held: On facts,
o dismissal of appeal as infructuous, left the order of High Court
setting aside the award, subsisting and undisturbed - Thus
the award did not exist - Hence, the same could ·not have
been executed.
An arbitration award was passed confirming a family
E settlement under a Memorandum of Understanding dated
June 24, 1'996 between five parties (iilclud.irig appellant
and respondent), subject to some m~difications. For
implementation of the award, appellant a·nd respondent
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated May
F
4, 1997. Despite that; the respondent a'nd 'B' {one of the
pa.rties to the settlement dated June· 24, 1996), fi'led
separate applications objecting to the award. Single
Judge of High Court allowihg the objections of both, set
aside the award. The appeals thereagainst preferred by
G the appellant was dismissed by Division Bench of High
Court. The appeals against the same were remitted to
High Court for fresh consideration. When the matter came
back to High Court, the appellant resolved the matter with
the respondent. Respondent by a letter to High Court arid
H
640
-l-
\..
NARAYAN PRASAD LOHIA v. NIKUNJ KUMAR LOHIA
641
-+·
by way of an affidavit stated that he was ·no ·longer A
interested in contesting' the proceedings~ In view of th~
same, Div1siori:,9encn;of High.Court disposed of the
. appeal so far as :the respondent was concerned~
1 High ···
Court allowed the appeal .filed by 'B". in the mea·ntime, .
respondent filed an application in the disposed of appeal
praying for cohection of date of Memorandum of·
8 :
.J
Understanding as June, 24, 1996 instead of Memoranchlm
..,.
of Understanding dated May 4, 1997. High Court declined
to entertain the application in view of the pending ap'peal
by 'B' before Supreme Court as the date of MOU was ,one c
of the questions involved therein. Respondent's appeal
to this Court was dis~issed. Appeal of 'B' to this Cpurt
was again remitted to High Court for reconsideration.
Appellant filed execution application against the D
I
respondent. Single Judge directed the parties to main~ain
status quo during the pendency of appeal of 'B' be~ore
Division Bench of High Court on remand by Supreme
.I(
Court. In appeal against the same, Division Bench of H,igh
Court stayed the interim direction passed by Sins;itle
E
Judge. In the meantime, appellant settled his dispute ~iih
'B' outside the Court and his appeal was dismissed a1s
infructuous by Division Bench of High Court in view 01f
;
the settlement. Division Bench of High Court by· its fina.I
order in appeal against the order in execution application,
held that since there was no award, order of Single Judge F
'
in execution is liable to be set aside, as a non-existent
y
award cannot be put into execution. Hence, the present
appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court:
G
HELD: In the facts and circumstances of the case, ttle ·
~
order of the Division Bench brought under appeal is quite
"'·
unexceptionable and calls for no interference. Though
the appellant and 'B', we~e able to arrive at a settlement,
the terms in which the order was passed, dismissing the H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
F-
A
appeal as lnfructuous, clearly left. the order of the Single
-+
Judge, upsetting the award, subsisting and undisturbed.
Hence, when .the resp.ohdent's appeal against the order
direcHng to matntain'status quo came up for final
f
disposal,' the tlivisioil Bench rightly held 'that thereExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.