ARB.P./683/2015 of ANIL GOEL Vs SATISH GOEL

Signature Not Verified

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decided on: 15.11.2022

+ARB.P. 683/2015

ANIL GOEL

..... PetitionerMr. Ajay Verma, Senior Advocatewith Mr. Ishaan Verma, Ms. DivianiK. Verma & Mr. Armaan Verma,Advocates.

Through:

versus

SATISH GOEL

..... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Sacchin Puri, Senior Advocatewith Mr. Gurmeher S. Sistani, Mr.Aayush Goel, & Ms. Nidhi Rana,Advocates for R-1.

Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Mr. RohanAnand, Ms. Snehal Kaila & Ms.Yashodhara Gupta, Advocates for R-2.

Mr. Praveen K. Sharma & Mr. SahilNagpal, Advocates for Sachin Goel.

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

J U M N T

1.ThispetitionunderSection11oftheArbitrationandConciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, “the Act”] arises out of aMemorandumofUnderstandingdated12.11.2014[hereinafter,“MoU”]. It appears from reading of the MoU that it was intended to

Signature Not Verified

settle issues between two brothers- the petitioner and the respondentNo.1 herein-and members of their family with regard to division ofcertain businesses and properties. Regrettably, that salutary objectivehas not been fulfilled and parties are before this Court, disputes havingarisen at the stage of appointment of an arbitrator.

2.During the pendency of proceedings in this Court, severalefforts at settlement, including by mediation and through theintervention of the Court, have been made but they have unfortunatelybeen unsuccessful.

A. Factual Background

3.The petitioner and the respondent No.1 are brothers. They arereferred to in the MoU as “Party of Part I” [Satish Goel, respondentNo.1] and “Party of Part II” [Anil Goel, petitioner]. However, it isundisputed that several other signatures also appear on the MoU. Thepetitioner’s wife, Mrs. Harish Goel and his two sons, Mr. Sumeet Goeland Mr. Sanjay Goel, as well as the wife of respondent No.1, Mrs.Vinnu Goel, his son, Mr. Sachin Goel and daughter-in-law, Mrs.Vanita Goel, have signed the MoU, both at the end of the MoU and atthe foot of each page. The signatures of the parties and the aforesaidmembers of their immediate family also appear on list of propertiesannexed to the MoU. The brothers have three sisters, Ms. Indu Goyle,Ms. Veena Gupta and Ms. Madhu Bansal. The signatures of VeenaGupta (since deceased) and her husband Mr. Vishwinder Gupta appearas witnesses to the MoU. As there is some controversy as to thecapacity in which members of the family of petitioner and respondentNo.1 have signed the MoU, I refrain at this stage from describing them

Signature Not Verified

as “parties” to the MoU. The members of the family will be referred toby their first names for ease of reference. It may be mentioned thatSatish and Vinnu also have daughter, Ms. Praneeta Shamnath, whois not signatory to the MoU.

4.The circumstances in which the MoU was entered into and theeffect thereof are both matters of controversy between the parties.Having regard to the view that I propose to take in this petition, it isnot necessary to enter into those controversies in detail. Suffice it tosay that disputes having arisen under the MoU, by legal notice dated23.09.2015 addressed on behalf of Anil to Satish, the arbitrationclause was invoked and an arbitrator was nominated as member ofthe arbitral tribunal.[1]Satish was also called upon to nominate amember of the tribunal. As Satish declined to do so, by letter dated21.10.2015[2], the present petition was filed seeking appointment of anarbitrator on his behalf towards consideration of the three-membertribunal contemplated by the MoU.

B. Relevant clauses of the MoU

5.Reproduction of the following clauses of the MoU is essentialfor adjudication of the contentions raised by learned counsel for theparties: -

“MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made on this 12[th]day of November 2014, between:1Sh. Satish Goel son of Late Sh. L.N. Goel, hereinafter referred toas Party of Part I, and

1 Legal notice dated 23.09.2015 sent by Anil to Satish at Document-13 of the petitioner’s list ofdocuments.documents.

2 Satish’s reply dated 21.10.2015 to Anil’s legal notice dated 23.09.2015 at Document-14 of thepetitioner’s list of documents.petitioner’s list of documents.

Signature Not Verified

2Sh. Anil Goel son Late sh. L.N. Goel, hereinafter referred to asParty of Part II.

Whereas Sh. Satish Goel and Sh. Anil Goel are both brothers andhave been carrying out business jointly since 1970, when Sh. AnilGoel left Delhi and joined the business with Sh. Satish Goel.

Both the parties have, since 1970, jointly incorporated and built upcompanies and immovable properties consisting of land andbuildings and other movable assets like Shares, PPF, jewellery,Silverware, Life insurance policies. The movable assets will be asper the books of accounts as on 31[st]March 2011.

Both the parties have today decided to divide the companies andmovable and immovable properties, equally amongst themselves,in the following manner.

In order to divide the assets, both the parties have decided on thefollowing:

1COMPANIES:

The various companies would be divided as under:

xxxxxxxxxxxx

2IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES

The immovable properties owned by both the parties and theirfamily members, which are part of this MOU are listed out inthe annexure attached to this MOU. The properties maybe injoint names or in individual names. It is understood that theseproperties were acquired through joint funds and belong equallyto both the parties.

It has been decided that family settlement agreement will bedrawn up which will enumerate the distribution of the propertiesamong both the parties.

The properties will be valued by two independent valuers and thefinal value of the property shall be the average of both the values.This process will be started immediately and to be concluded by15[th]December.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Signature Not Verified

It is decided among the parties that the residential houses at NebSarai, Delhi and Chanchani Colony Dhanbad, shall be liquidatedby 31[st]March 2015. If the same are not liquidated by that date, thesame shall be vacated by both the parties and kept vacant till theirliquidation. Both these houses shall not be part of the list of theproperties to be drawn up for division among the parties asmentioned above. Both the properties as mentioned above shall bedefinitely liquidated by 31[st]March 2016 on the basis of the bestoffer available till that date.

MOVABLE PROPERTY

1Jewellery

xxxx

2Other Movable Assets:

xxxxxxxx

Once the division of property is decided among the parties. Afamily settlement agreement will be drawn up mentioning thedivision of the properties and necessary legal steps shall be takento get the family settlement agreement recognized by Court ofLaw.

The parties shall take immediate steps to finalise the familysettlement agreement, which is the crux of this MOU.These arethe broad parameters of the family settlement, which shall bedetailed in the family Settlement agreement to be drafted.

Both the parties have decided that all future statutory matters, inrespect of the above mentioned companies and/or properties shallbe jointly handled and any liability shall be jointly met.

The parties to this agreement have decided that in case of anydispute in the implementation of this MOU, the matter will bereferred to panel of three arbitrators, one arbitrator to beappointed by each of the parties and the third arbitrator to beappointed mutually by the two arbitrators.”[3]

3 Emphasis supplied.

Signature Not Verified

C. Pleadings and submissions

6.In the present petition, as originally filed, Anil was the onlypetitioner and Satish was the sole respondent. However, Vinnu filedan application for impleadment in the proceedings as she opposes anyattempt to deal with her properties under the guise of the MoU [I.A.No. 6781/2017]. This application was allowed by an order dated25.05.2022. By the same order, notice was also issued to Harish,Sanjay, Sumeet, Sachin, and Vanita to ascertain their stand as far asarbitration is concerned. Mr. Ajay Verma, learned Senior Counsel forthe petitioner, stated in the course of hearing that he has takeninstructions from Harish, Sanjay, and Sumeet and they all support thepetitioner. Vinnu, Sachin, and Vanita have each been independentlyrepresented. Their contentions have been somewhat at variance witheach other and with the contentions advanced by Satish, except to theextent that Vanita has largely adopted the submissions of Vinnu.

7.The contentions of Anil in the petition are that he and Satishhave been doing business jointly since approximately 1970. From thejoint business and its investments, they acquired various immovableand movable properties as well as business interests. According toAnil, although the assets of the businesses were held in the name ofdifferent family members, both brothers, directly or with theirrespective family members, held equal interest in the assets.

8.Anil contends that disputes arose between the families since2010, which they sought to resolve with the intervention of othermembers of the family and friends. According to him, the MoU finally

Signature Not Verified

came to be signed as result of these efforts, particularly with theintervention of Sachin. It has been averred that the MoU was signed inthe presence of Veena and Vishwinder as well as the parties’Chartered Accountant, Mr. Sanjiv Gupta [hereinafter, “Sanjiv”]. Theprincipal objective of the MoU was to ensure that the families’ jointassets were equally divided between the two branches. As far as thestatus of other signatories is concerned, Anil’s averment in the petitionis that the MoU was “signed by both the parties, but to show completeunanimity and agreement, it was also confirmed by” Harish, Sanjay,Sumeet, Vinnu, Sachin, and Vanita.[4]

9.Anil has detailed various actions purportedly taken by him andhis branch of the family pursuant to the MoU, but claims that Satishand his branch of the family did not reciprocate. It is unnecessary forthe purposes of the present petition to enumerate the details of thesedisputes. Suffice it to say that correspondence ensued between theparties and meeting was also held with other members of the familyon 14.09.2015 to attempt resolution in terms of the MoU. As thedisputes remained unresolved, Anil addressed the aforesaid legalnotice dated 23.09.2015 to Satish seeking to invoke the arbitrationclause and to constitute the arbitral tribunal.[5]Satish’s refusal to do sohas led to the filing of the present petition, seeking appointment of anarbitrator in lieu of the arbitrator to be nominated by Satish as amember of the three-member tribunal contemplated by the MoU.

4 Para 9.2 of the statement on behalf of petitioner in support of the petition.

5 Supra (note 1).

Signature Not Verified

10.Although Satish has filed reply to the present petition, Mr.Sacchin Puri, learned Senior Advocate appearing on his behalf, did notultimately press the objections raised. He instead conceded that thearbitral tribunal may be constituted with regard to the disputesbetween Anil and Satish, reserving Satish’s various objections toarbitrability, interpretation of the MoU, enforceability of the MoU inview of its non-registration, and also on merits, for adjudication by thearbitral tribunal.

11.In these circumstances, the principal objections to the referencehave come from Vinnu, Sachin, and Vanita.

12.In the application for impleadment filed by Vinnu, she contendsthat she has income from various sources which she has deployedtowards the acquisition of movable and immovable assets. She isaware of disputes between her husband Satish and his brother Anil,and that some litigation between them has commenced. She claimsthat disputes have also arisen between Satish and Sachin, in the courseof which she learnt about the MoU, which according to her seeks todivide properties which are hers alone. The application suggests thatVinnu does not recollect signing any such MoU, and an apprehensionis expressed that her signature may have been obtained on blankpaper. It is also averred that she has signed documents without readingor verifying their contents as consequence of her implicit faith on herfamily- including not only her son, Sachin but also Anil’s son, Sanjay.13.Based on these pleadings, Mr. Verma raised the followingprincipal submissions: -

Signature Not Verified

a. Mr. Verma referred to the contents of the MoU to contend thatboth branches of the family have accepted that the familybusiness has been carried out jointly by Anil and Satish and thatthe businesses and properties acquired by them are the fruits ofthis joint business, owned equally by both branches, regardlessof nominal ownership.both branches of the family have accepted that the familybusiness has been carried out jointly by Anil and Satish and thatthe businesses and properties acquired by them are the fruits ofthis joint business, owned equally by both branches, regardlessof nominal ownership.

b. Mr. Verma submitted that although only the two brothers wereoriginally sought to be made parties to the MoU, other membersof their immediate family, enumerated above, signed the MoUsignifying their acceptance and confirmation of the contentsthereof. He drew my attention particularly to an email dated18.11.2014 addressed by Sachin to Anil, Sumeet, and Sanjay inwhich Sachin stated that the MoU between Satish and Anil“needs to be signed by” Sanjay and Sumeet.[6]originally sought to be made parties to the MoU, other membersof their immediate family, enumerated above, signed the MoUsignifying their acceptance and confirmation of the contentsthereof. He drew my attention particularly to an email dated18.11.2014 addressed by Sachin to Anil, Sumeet, and Sanjay inwhich Sachin stated that the MoU between Satish and Anil“needs to be signed by” Sanjay and Sumeet.[6]c. To meet Vinnu’s assertion in her application that she was notparty to the MoU and had no knowledge thereof, Mr. Vermareferred to two communications which suggest that she waspresent at meeting held between family members forresolution of disputes in terms of the MoU. The firstcommunication dated 12.09.2015, was addressed by VijayBansal, whose wife Madhu is one of the sisters of Anil andSatish.[7]Vijay’s email refers to meeting of “Family Elders” tobe held on 14.09.2015 at Satish’s instance. It is particularlymentioned that all elders in the family, including the fiveparty to the MoU and had no knowledge thereof, Mr. Vermareferred to two communications which suggest that she waspresent at meeting held between family members forresolution of disputes in terms of the MoU. The firstcommunication dated 12.09.2015, was addressed by VijayBansal, whose wife Madhu is one of the sisters of Anil andSatish.[7]Vijay’s email refers to meeting of “Family Elders” tobe held on 14.09.2015 at Satish’s instance. It is particularlymentioned that all elders in the family, including the five

6 Sachin’s e-mail dated 18.11.2014 at Document-3 of the petitioner’s list of documents.

7 Vijay’s e-mail dated 12.09.2015 at Document-12(colly) of the petitioner’s list of documents.

Signature Not Verified

siblings [Indu, Veena, Satish, Anil, and Madhu] and theirsurviving spouses [Vishwinder, Vinnu, Harish, and Vijay], wererequested to attend the family meeting. Reference is made inthis communication to the MoU drawn up by Sachin in thepresence of Sanjiv, Vishwinder, and Veena, and signed by Anil,Satish and all members of the Goel family. The secondcommunication is of 15.09.2015 and is addressed by Sachin toVijay, Anil, Madhu and the sons of Indu and Veena.[8]Thecontents of the email are relied upon particularly for referenceto the meeting being between Sachin’s aunts and uncles and his“parents”.[9]It is contended that his use of the word “parents” inplural indicated that both Satish and Vinnu were present at themeeting.

d. Mr. Verma relied upon other correspondence on record tosubmit that MoU has, in fact, been acted upon substantially andthe benefit of the MoU has been taken by Satish and his branchof the family.submit that MoU has, in fact, been acted upon substantially andthe benefit of the MoU has been taken by Satish and his branchof the family.

e. With regard to the sufficiency of the invocation of arbitration bya communication addressed to Satish alone, Mr. Vermasubmitted that the contents of the MoU make it clear that thebrothers were to represent their respective branches of thefamily. As such, he submitted that the notice of invocationaddressed to Satish alone would suffice for reference quaVinnu, Sachin, and Vanita as well. For this purpose, Mr. Vermaa communication addressed to Satish alone, Mr. Vermasubmitted that the contents of the MoU make it clear that thebrothers were to represent their respective branches of thefamily. As such, he submitted that the notice of invocationaddressed to Satish alone would suffice for reference quaVinnu, Sachin, and Vanita as well. For this purpose, Mr. Verma

8 Sachin’s e-mail dated 15.09.2015 at Document-12(colly) of the petitioner’s list of documents.

9 Ibid.

Signature Not Verified

relied upon two judgments- one of the Supreme Court inAnilkumar Jinabhai Patel vs. Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel &Ors.[10]and the other of the Madhya Pradesh High Court inKeshrimal & Ors. vs. Basantilal[11].

f. Mr. Verma relied upon judgment of this Court in OrmaaImpex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nissai Asb Pte. Ltd.[12]to resist Vinnu’ssubmission that her signature did not signify consent to theterms of the MoU. He also relied upon this Court’s decision inSanjeev Sahni vs. Arvind Sahni & Ors.[13]to argue that the Courtcan refer non-party to arbitration in view of commonality ofsubject matter.Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nissai Asb Pte. Ltd.[12]to resist Vinnu’ssubmission that her signature did not signify consent to theterms of the MoU. He also relied upon this Court’s decision inSanjeev Sahni vs. Arvind Sahni & Ors.[13]to argue that the Courtcan refer non-party to arbitration in view of commonality ofsubject matter.

14.Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned counsel for Vinnu, submitted asfollows: -follows: -

a. With regard to the scope of examination of this Court underSection 11 of the Act, Ms. Agnihotri submitted that the questionof whether or not the MoU is document obtained by fraud orundue influence, at least as far as Vinnu is concerned, is amatter which the Court is required to examine at this stage. Shecontended that the present arbitration proceedings having been“commenced” with the issuance of the letter of invocation on23.09.2015[14], under Section 21 of the Act, the present case isnot covered by Section 11 (6A) of the Act, which came intoforce only on 23.10.2015. For this purpose, she relied upon theSection 11 of the Act, Ms. Agnihotri submitted that the questionof whether or not the MoU is document obtained by fraud orundue influence, at least as far as Vinnu is concerned, is amatter which the Court is required to examine at this stage. Shecontended that the present arbitration proceedings having been“commenced” with the issuance of the letter of invocation on23.09.2015[14], under Section 21 of the Act, the present case isnot covered by Section 11 (6A) of the Act, which came intoforce only on 23.10.2015. For this purpose, she relied upon the

10 (2018) 15 SCC 178.

11 1963 SCC OnLine MP 77.

12 1997 SCC OnLine Del 140.

13 Judgment dated 25.04.2019 in CS (OS) 157/2017.

14 Supra (note 1).

Signature Not Verified

judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. ParmarConstruction Company[15]. As consequence, Ms. Agnihotrisubmitted that the validity of an agreement is question that theCourt is required to consider, as laid down by the judgments ofthe Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.[16]and Velugubanti Hari Babu vs.Parvathini Narasimha Rao & Anr.[17]. She also cited recentdecision of this Court in Amrish Gupta vs. Gurchait SinghChima[18]in which Boghara[19]was followed and an arbitral awardwas set aside on the ground that the arbitration agreement wasvitiated by fraud.

b. Ms. Agnihotri cited Section 7 of the Act to submit that theexistence of an arbitration agreement is only between the“parties” thereto. On the facts of the present case, hersubmission was that Vinnu is not party to the MoU even if itis assumed that she is signatory thereto. She referred to thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Veena Singh (Dead) ThroughLegal Representative vs. District Registrar/Additional Collector(F/R) & Anr.[20]and the judgment of the Bombay High Court inKamlabai and Ors. vs. Shantirai &Ors.[21]in support of hercontention that mere signing of document does not amount todue execution thereof.

15 (2019) 15 SCC 682 [paragraphs 25 to 28].

16 (2009) 1 SCC 267 [paragraph 22.1].

17 (2016) 14 SCC 126 [paragraph 8].

18 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1116.

19 Supra (note 16).

20 (2022) 7 SCC 1.

21 1980 SCC OnLine Bom 152.

Signature Not Verified

c. In the present case, Ms. Agnihotri submitted that the materialson record do not support Anil’s contention that Vinnu is boundby the MoU. She emphasized that none of the correspondencerelated to the MoU was addressed to Vinnu or sent by Vinnu.According to her, the pleadings in Vinnu’s application withregard to lack of her consent for the inclusion of her personalproperties in the division between Anil and Satish and/or theirfamilies is borne out by the fact that she has taken civilproceedings immediately to ensure that the MoU has no effectin respect of her properties. Ms. Agnihotri referred to suit filedby Vinnu in this Court against Anil as well as against her ownhusband and son (Satish and Sachin respectively) [CS (OS) No.371/2017], in which an interim order dated 17.08.2017 has beenpassed. She emphasized that Anil has made an application forreference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Act in her suit,which remains pending. She urged the Court to defer decisionin the present petition until that application is heard anddecided.on record do not support Anil’s contention that Vinnu is boundby the MoU. She emphasized that none of the correspondencerelated to the MoU was addressed to Vinnu or sent by Vinnu.According to her, the pleadings in Vinnu’s application withregard to lack of her consent for the inclusion of her personalproperties in the division between Anil and Satish and/or theirfamilies is borne out by the fact that she has taken civilproceedings immediately to ensure that the MoU has no effectin respect of her properties. Ms. Agnihotri referred to suit filedby Vinnu in this Court against Anil as well as against her ownhusband and son (Satish and Sachin respectively) [CS (OS) No.371/2017], in which an interim order dated 17.08.2017 has beenpassed. She emphasized that Anil has made an application forreference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Act in her suit,which remains pending. She urged the Court to defer decisionin the present petition until that application is heard anddecided.

d. With regard to Vinnu’s civil suit, Ms. Agnihotri referred to theSupreme Court’s decision in India Household and HealthcareLtd. vs. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd.[22]to submit thatfraud would vitiate the arbitration agreement and that the Courtshould not pass an order which would have the effect ofviolating the order of another Court.Supreme Court’s decision in India Household and HealthcareLtd. vs. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd.[22]to submit thatfraud would vitiate the arbitration agreement and that the Courtshould not pass an order which would have the effect ofviolating the order of another Court.

22 (2007) 5 SCC 510.

e. Ms. Agnihotri argued that Anil’s position in the correspondenceand in the pleadings in the present petition clearly indicate that,even he regarded only Satish and himself to be the “parties” tothe agreement.and in the pleadings in the present petition clearly indicate that,even he regarded only Satish and himself to be the “parties” tothe agreement.

f. In the absence of an invocation of the arbitration clause againsther, Ms. Agnihotri submitted that the petition under Section 11of the Act is not maintainable as against Vinnu. In support ofthis argument, she referred to the judgments of this Court inAlupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ozone Overseas Pvt.Ltd.[23], Active Media vs. Divisional Commercial Manager,Northern Railway[24], Bharat Chugh vs. MC Agrawal HUF[25]andP.L. Kalra vs. Braham Dutt Saini[26].her, Ms. Agnihotri submitted that the petition under Section 11of the Act is not maintainable as against Vinnu. In support ofthis argument, she referred to the judgments of this Court inAlupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ozone Overseas Pvt.Ltd.[23], Active Media vs. Divisional Commercial Manager,Northern Railway[24], Bharat Chugh vs. MC Agrawal HUF[25]andP.L. Kalra vs. Braham Dutt Saini[26].

g. Ms. Agnihotri also submitted that the claims sought to be raisedby Anil against her at this stage would be barred by limitationand that the MoU, taken at face value, tantamounts to anadmission of illegal transactions in properties contrary to theProhibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.by Anil against her at this stage would be barred by limitationand that the MoU, taken at face value, tantamounts to anadmission of illegal transactions in properties contrary to theProhibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

15.On behalf of Sachin, Mr. Praveen Sharma, learned counsel,supported the submissions of Ms. Agnihotri with regard to the natureof the MoU as binding document on members of the family otherthan Anil and Satish. He characterized other family members,including Sachin, as “conforming parties”, whose signature was takento confirm the arrangement between Anil and Satish, including as to

23 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7228.24 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1999.25 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5373.26 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2262.

Signature Not Verified

the division of the properties in their names. However, Mr. Sharmacontended that this could not bind the other family members to thearbitration agreement, which was between Anil and Satish alone.

16.On the terms of the arbitration clause in the MoU, Mr. Sharmasubmitted that reference of several parties to arbitration would beunworkable as the clause requires panel of three arbitrators, one tobe appointed by each party and the third to be appointed by the twoarbitrators. He submitted that this arrangement also indicates anintention that only Anil and Satish would be “parties” to thearbitration agreement.

17.Mr. Sharma relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court inBihar State Mineral Development Corporation and Anr. vs. EnconBuilders (I) (P) Ltd.[27]to submit that consensus between the parties isrequired before reference to arbitration, which according to him ismissing in the present case.

18.Mr. Samit Khosla, learned counsel appearing for Vanita,adopted the submissions of Ms. Agnihotri on all counts.

19.In rejoinder, Mr. Verma submitted as follows: -

a. Mr. Verma disputed Ms. Agnihotri’s contention that questionsof fraud and validity of the arbitration agreement must beexamined by the Court in every case, even in the legal regimeantecedent to the insertion of Section 11 (6A) into the Act. Hesubmitted that the Supreme Court in Bharat Rasiklal Ashra vs.Gautam Rasiklal Ashra & Anr.[28]laid down the conditions inof fraud and validity of the arbitration agreement must beexamined by the Court in every case, even in the legal regimeantecedent to the insertion of Section 11 (6A) into the Act. Hesubmitted that the Supreme Court in Bharat Rasiklal Ashra vs.Gautam Rasiklal Ashra & Anr.[28]laid down the conditions in

27 (2003) 7 SCC 418.

28 (2012) 2 SCC 144 [paragraph 17].

which such an examination was required. In case of anagreement which has been partly performed - as has the MoU,according to Mr. Verma - he submitted that these questions arenot required to be examined at this stage and are, in fact, falseand vexatious claims to defeat the chosen adjudicatory forum ofarbitration. Mr. Verma disputed Ms. Agnihotri’s reliance onVeena Singh[29]to draw distinction between being signatoryto an agreement and execution thereof, on the ground that thejudgment was rendered in the specific context of the provisionsof the Registration Act, 1908. Mr. Verma referred to thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Bihar State ElectricityBoard, Patna & Ors. vs. Green Rubber Industries and Ors.[30],and two judgments of this Court in Ormaa Impex[31], and BenaraBearings & Pistons Ltd. vs. Mahle Engine Components IndiaPvt. Ltd.[32]in this connection.

b. Mr. Verma urged the Court to decide these questions in thecontext of the character of the MoU as family settlement. Hesubmitted that the considerations for assessment of the validityor effect of family settlement are very different from thosewhich might prevail in other transactions. He commended to theCourt the approach approved by the Supreme Court in line ofdecisions with regard to family settlements such as Kale & Ors.context of the character of the MoU as family settlement. Hesubmitted that the considerations for assessment of the validityor effect of family settlement are very different from thosewhich might prevail in other transactions. He commended to theCourt the approach approved by the Supreme Court in line ofdecisions with regard to family settlements such as Kale & Ors.

29 Supra (note 20).

30 (1990) 1 SCC 731.

31 Supra (note 12).32 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7226.

Signature Not Verified

vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.[33]and HariShankar Singhania & Ors. vs. Gaur Hari Singhania & Ors.[34].

c. Relying upon the decisions rendered in Kale[35]and HariShankar Singhania[36], Mr. Verma submitted that the invocationof the arbitration clause in the present case by communicationaddressed to Satish alone ought not to be taken as technicaldefence to the reference by other members of the family whowere also made parties to the MoU. He cited the decisions ofthe Supreme Court in Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade vs.DevendraPeerappaChamdgade&Ors.[37],K.V.Narayanaswami vs. K.V. Ramakrishna Iyer & Ors.[38], and MudiGowda Gowdappa Sankh vs. Ram Chandra Ravagowda Sankh[39]and the judgments of this Court in Amit Johri vs. Deepak Johri& Ors.[40]and Sanjeev Sahni[41]with regard to characteristics ofvarious forms of joint family properties. With specific referenceto the context of arbitral proceedings, Mr. Verma referred to theSupreme Court’s decision in Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel[42], thedecision of this Court in S.N.P. Punj vs. V.P. Punj & Ors.[43]andthe decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Keshrimal[44]to submit that the heads of the groups of the family have

33 (1976) 3 SCC 119.

34 (2006) 4 SCC 658.

35 Supra (note 33).

36 Supra (note 34).

37 (2007) 1 SCC 521 [paragraphs 9 and 12].

38 AIR 1965 SC 289 [paragraph 15].

39 (1969) 1 SCC 386 [paragraph 6].

40 2014 SCC OnLine Del 822.

41 Supra (note 13).

42 Supra (note 10).

43 2009 SCC OnLine Del 484.

44 Supra (note 11).

ARB.P. 683/2015

Signature Not Verified

primary role, which renders the invocation of arbitrationaddressed to Satish sufficient for the purposes of the Act.

D. Analysis

20.On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, I first take up thequestion of whether any persons other than Anil and Satish can bereferred to arbitration in the present petition in the context of theinvocation letter dated 23.09.2015[45]and the averments of the parties inthe present case.

21.At the outset, it is clear from reading of Section 11 of the Actthat the appointment of arbitrators is ordinarily to be made by theparties or in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties. Theintervention of the Court under Section 11 of the Act arises only whenthe parties are unable to agree on an appointment or the procedureotherwise fails. In addition to the aforesaid question of invocation ofthe arbitration clause for purposes of Section 11, an ancillary questionarises as to whether an arbitral proceeding can at all be commencedagainst other family members without notice addressed to them interms of Section 21 of the Act.

22.In the present case, the parties have, in the MoU, signified theirintention to appoint three-member tribunal, of which two arbitratorsare to be appointed by the parties and third arbitrator appointed bythe nominated arbitrators. The plea with which Anil has approachedthis Court is that he called upon Satish, the opposing party to nominatean arbitrator which Satish has failed to do. For this reason, the reliefsought is for the Court to appoint an arbitrator on behalf of Satish and

45 Supra (note 1).

Signature Not Verified

for consequent reference to the tribunal constituted in terms of theMoU.

23.The significance of the letter of invocation in the context ofproceedings under Section 11 of the Act has been emphasized by theSupreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. NortelNetworks (India) (P) Ltd.[46]as follows:-

“15. It is now fairly well-settled that the limitation for filing anapplication under Section 11 would arise upon the failure to makethe appointment of the arbitrator within period of 30 days fromissuance of the notice invoking arbitration.In other words, anapplication under Section 11 can be filed only after notice ofarbitration in respect of the particular claim(s)/dispute(s) to bereferred to arbitration [as contemplated by Section 21 of the Act]is made, and there is failure to make the appointment.”[47]application under Section 11 would arise upon the failure to makethe appointment of the arbitrator within period of 30 days fromissuance of the notice invoking arbitration.In other words, anapplication under Section 11 can be filed only after notice ofarbitration in respect of the particular claim(s)/dispute(s) to bereferred to arbitration [as contemplated by Section 21 of the Act]is made, and there is failure to make the appointment.”[47]

24.Four judgments of coordinate benches of this Court on thispoint have been placed by Ms. Agnihotri: -

a.In P.L. Kalra[48], the Court was considering an application underSection 11 of the Act. The Court relied upon the judgment inKailash Prajapati vs. Citicorp Finance (I) Ltd.[49]to hold that thepetition was not maintainable on account of the petitioner’sfailure to issue mandatory notice to the respondent prior to thefiling of the petition under Section 11 of the Act.Section 11 of the Act. The Court relied upon the judgment inKailash Prajapati vs. Citicorp Finance (I) Ltd.[49]to hold that thepetition was not maintainable on account of the petitioner’sfailure to issue mandatory notice to the respondent prior to thefiling of the petition under Section 11 of the Act.

b. In Alupro[50], the Court held that failure to serve noticeinvoking the arbitral proceedings under Section 21 of the Actwould vitiate the arbitral proceedings, even to the extent that theaward would be set aside. The Court came to the conclusioninvoking the arbitral proceedings under Section 21 of the Actwould vitiate the arbitral proceedings, even to the extent that theaward would be set aside. The Court came to the conclusion

46 (2021) 5 SCC 738.

47 Emphasis supplied.

48 Supra (note 26).

49 2012 SCC OnLine Del 834.

50 Supra (note 23).

Signature Not Verified

that the notice under Section 21 is mandatory for severalreasons, including to ensure that the procedure for appointmentof the arbitrator contemplated by the agreement is followed andforadeterminationofthescopeofdisputesrequiringadjudication. The relevant observations of the Court in thisregard are as follows: -

“26. Thirdly, and importantly, where the parties have agreed ona procedure for the appointment of an arbitrator, unless thereis such notice invoking the arbitration clause, it will not bepossible to know whether the procedure as envisaged in thearbitration clause has been followed. Invariably, arbitrationclauses do not contemplate the unilateral appointment of anarbitrator by one of the parties. There has to be consensus.The notice under Section 21 serves an important purpose offacilitating consensus on the appointment of an arbitrator.xxxxxxxxxxxx28. Lastly, for the purposes of Section 11(6) of the Act, withoutthe notice under Section 21 of the Act, party seekingreferenceofdisputestoarbitrationwillbeunabletodemonstrate that there was failure by one party to adhere tothe procedureand accede to the request for the appointment ofan arbitrator. The trigger for the Court's jurisdiction underSection 11 of the Act is such failure by one party to respond.xxxxxxxxxxxx30. Considering that the running theme of the Act is the consentor agreement between the parties at every stage, Section 21performs an important function of forging such consensus onseveral aspects viz. the scope of the disputes, the determinationof which disputes remain unresolved; of which disputes aretime-barred; of identification of the claims and counter-claimsand most importantly, on the choice of arbitrator. Thus, theinescapable conclusion on proper interpretation of Section 21of the Act is that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary,the notice under Section 21 of the Act by the claimant invokingthe arbitration clause, preceding the reference of disputes toarbitration, is mandatory. In other words, without such notice,the arbitration proceedings that are commenced would beunsustainable in law.”[51]

51 Emphasis supplied.

Signature Not Verified

c. In Active Media[52], petition under Section 11 of the Act wasdismissed for want of proper notice invoking arbitration,following the judgment in Alupro[53]and judgment of theDivision Bench of Madras High Court in Indus Ind Bank Ltd.vs. Mulchand B. Jain.[54]dismissed for want of proper notice invoking arbitration,following the judgment in Alupro[53]and judgment of theDivision Bench of Madras High Court in Indus Ind Bank Ltd.vs. Mulchand B. Jain.[54]

d. In Bharat Chugh[55], an ongoing arbitration was terminated onthe ground that notice under Section 21 had not been given.the ground that notice under Section 21 had not been given.

25.In Anacon Process Control Pvt. Ltd vs. Gammon India Ltd.[56],the Bombay High Court has also held that no order under Section 11of the Act can be passed in the absence of valid invocation ofarbitration under Section 21 thereof.

26.It is in the context of these judgments that we must read theletter of invocation and the pleadings in the present case.

27.The letter of invocation dated 23.09.2015 was addressed bylearned counsel for the petitioner to Satish alone.[57]The contents of theletter, reproduced below, are relevant to determine whether it can betreated as an invocation against other members of Satish’s family also,

as urged by Mr. Verma: -

“Dear Sir,

Under instructions from and on behalf of our client, Mr. AnilGoel, s/o late Mr. L.N. Goel, r/o 154, Neb Sarai, IGNOU Road,New Delhi 110068, we hereby serve upon you the following notice:1-Our client and you are brothers and have been doing businessjointlysincearound1970.Fromthejointbusiness,jointinvestments and other joint actions, our Client and you have over

52 Supra (note 24)53 Supra (note 23).54 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 555.

55 Supra (note 25)56 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 10076.57 Supra (note 1).

ARB.P. 683/2015

Signature Not Verified

the years jointly acquired various movable and immovableproperties besides business/business interest.

2-With differences having arisen between our Client and you,through the intervention of common family friends and relatives, aMemorandumofUnderstandingdatedNovember12,2014(“MOU”) was arrived at between our Client and you.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

4-However, despite repeated requests from our Client, you havefailed to act in similar manner. In this respect, our Client as alast resort communicated various issues by his email dated04.08.2015 which may kindly be considered as part hereof and acopy of the same is annexed hereto as Annexure-1. By the saidemail, our Client, inter alia, called upon you to act in terms of theMOU and do all such deeds and things as were required to fullyimplement the MOU as well as remove all irritants which you werecreating with respect to the various joint businesses and properties.5-Despite the earnest and fervent request of our Client, you havefailed to take any action or come forward to implement the MOUand resolve all disputes and differences, inter alia, arising fromyour failure and recalcitrance to implement the MOU.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

7-In these circumstances, as disputes and differences relating tothe implementation of the MOU between our Client and you havenot been resolved due to your recalcitrance, our Client has nooption but to, and does by this Notice, hereby invoke arbitrationpursuant to the Arbitration Clause in the MOU which is to thefollowing effect:

“The parties to this agreement have decided that in case of anydispute in the implementation of this MOU, the matter will bereferred to panel of three arbitrators, one arbitrator to beappointed by each of the parties and the third arbitrator to beappointed mutually by the two arbitrators.”

8-Our Client hereby appoints Justice (retd.) Anil Dev Singh as theArbitrator to be appointed by him. You are hereby called upon toappoint your Arbitrator immediately so that both arbitrators canappoint the third arbitrator.

9-Kindly note that in the event you fail to act, our Client shall beconstrained to approach the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi forappointment of an Arbitrator on your behalf, which proceedingsshall be at your risk as to cost and consequence.”

28.It may be noted that this communication makes no reference toany member of the family other than Anil, on whose behalf it was

Signature Not Verified

sent, and Satish, to whom it was sent. The contents of thecommunication clearly suggest that Anil’s allegations are againstSatish alone and that the MoU was between both of them. With regardto the appointment of the arbitrator also, demand is made uponSatish and Satish is cautioned of the consequence of non-compliance.

29.The petition filed before this Court also proceeds on the samebasis. Satish alone was made party to the petition and the petition isprefaced by table which includes the following assertions:-

2.Name & Address of ApplicantMr. Anil Goels/oLateMr.L.N. Goelr/o 154, NebSarai, IGNOURoad,NewDelhi-1100683.Name & Addresses of OtherMr.SatishPartiestoArbitrationGoelAgreements/oLateMr.L.N. Goelr/o 154, NebSarai, IGNOURoad,NewDelhi-1100684.Name of arbitrator, if any,Justice (retd.)alreadyappointedbytheAnil Dev Singhpartieshasbeenappointedasthe ArbitratorbyPetitioner.Respondenthas failed toappointhisarbitratorandthethirdarbitrator who

Signature Not Verified

In the supporting statement affirmed by the petitioner, the following

averments are relevant: -

“2. Petitioner and Respondent are brothers and have been doingbusiness jointly since around 1970. From the joint business, jointinvestments and other joint actions, Petitioner and Respondenthave over the years jointly acquired various movable andimmovable properties besides business/business interest. Forfamily purposes, however, most of the businesses/properties werenominally in the names of different family members of both theparties, but both brothers, directly or with their respective familymembers held equal holdings/interests in such properties.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

4. Due to many unwarranted actions of Respondent/his family,there was complete stoppage of the parties' 4-decade old coalrelated business in West Bokaro, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, withTata steel, which was the core family business which both ofparties had set up and which prospered because of their hardlabour.

5.Petitioner repeatedly requested Respondent for amicablyresolving all issues between them so that not just the good name oftheir family could be protected but also their respective interestscould be protected.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

8. Fortunately, in November, 2014, due to the intervention offamily and common friends, and the intervention of Mr. SachinGoel, the son of Respondent, to amicably resolve the disputesbetween the two branches of the family, in the presence of theparties' Chartered Accountant, Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, and the sisterand brother-in-law of the parties,an agreement was arrived atbetween the partiesafter marathon session of nearly 12 hourslasting till late in the night, which was recorded in Memorandum ofUnderstanding dated 12.11.2014 ("MOU") (Annexure 1 hereto) asprepared by and typed by the Chartered Accountant, Mr. SanjivGupta. Four (4) originals of the MOU were so signed. In fact,Respondent's son kept making changes to various drafts of the

58 Emphasis supplied.

Signature Not Verified

MOU in his own hand and it was Respondent/his son who desiredthe arbitration clause therein.

xxxxxxxxxxxx9.2 The MOU was signed by both the parties, but to showcomplete unanimity and agreement, it was also confirmed by thevarious family members of the parties who included thefollowing:PetitionerWife (Mrs. Harish Goel)2 sons (Mr. Sanjay Goel and Mr. Sumeet Goel)

RespondentWife (Mrs. Vinnu Goel)Son (Mr. Sachin Goel)Daughter-in-law (Mrs. Vanita Goel)

xxxxxxxxxxxx23. Petitioner, in compliance with Arbitration clause of the MOU,through the said notice dated 23.9.2015 also appointed Justice(retd) Anil Dev Singh as the Arbitrator to be appointed by him andmade written demand on Respondent to appoint his Arbitratorimmediately so that both arbitrators can appoint third arbitrator inthe terms of Arbitration clause. It was clarified that if Respondentfailed to act, Petitioner would be constrained to approach the courtfor appointment of an arbitrator on his behalf.”[59]

30.Anil’s pleadings in this petition also thus proceed on the basisthat only he and Satish were parties to the arbitration agreement. It isfor this reason that the invocation letter was neither addressed to anyother person, nor was any other person sought to be impleaded in thispetition. Although Vinnu was impleaded at her own instance by theorder dated 25.05.2022, she stated in the application that she wished tooppose the petition on the ground that she is not party to the MoU atall and her personal properties could not be subjected to division. Thearbitration petition has not been amended to incorporate any pleadingsagainst her. The other members of the family were issued notice to

59 Emphasis supplied.

Signature Not Verified

ascertain their stand on the question of reference in the hope that acomposite adjudication of disputes between the parties may bepossible. That hope has, unfortunately, remained unfulfilled. Be thatas it may, it cannot be disputed that no letter of invocation ofarbitration was addressed to any of them.

31.In such circumstances, it is not possible to refer any partiesother than Anil and Satish to arbitration in these proceedings. Themandatorynatureofanoticeinvokingarbitrationhasbeenemphasized in the aforesaid judgments. Such notice must beaddressed to the party against whom arbitration is sought, both for thefulfilment of Section 21 of the Act, and condition precedent to theexercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act.

32.The decisions cited by Mr. Verma do not persuade me toconclude that the invocation addressed to Satish was sufficient to bindother members of Satish’s branch of the family. Turning first to thejudgments which have been rendered in the context of the ArbitrationAct, Mr. Verma placed considerable reliance upon the view taken bythe Supreme Court in Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel[60]. The Court wasconcerned with challenge to an arbitral award, which had beendismissed by the High Court as time barred. The award arose out ofdisputes between brothers. One of the contentions raised in appeal wasthat the arbitral award had not been served upon the family membersof one of the brothers, and the period of limitation for the setting asideof the award had not, therefore, commenced. The Court rejected thiscontention for the following reasons:-

60 Supra (note 10).

Signature Not Verified

“24. Award dated 7-7-1996 was received by Anilkumar Patel forhimself and on behalf of his family members. In interim MoUdated 29-6-1996, Anilkumar Patel signed for self and as power-of-attorney holder for his wife and his all sons and daughter-in-law.Challenging the award dated 7-7-1996, Anilkumar Patel andhis family members have filed single petition under Section 34 ofthe Act. Likewise they have also filed single petition for amendingArbitration Petition No. 202 of 2005.Anilkumar Patel, being thehead of his family, was person directly connected with andinvolved in the proceeding and was also in control of theproceeding. Being head of the family, Anilkumar Patel would havebeen the best person to understand and appreciate the arbitralaward and take decision as to whether an application underSection 34 of the Act was required to be filed or not. In such factsand circumstances, in our considered view, service of arbitralaward on Anilkumar Patel amounts to service on the otherAppellants1(a) to 1(d) and Respondent 10 and they cannot pleadnon-compliance with Section 31(5) of the Act.”[61]

This judgment is distinguishable on facts as Anilkumar, in fact, held apower of attorney for his wife, sons, and daughter-in-law and had alsoconducted the arbitration proceedings on behalf of all his familymembers.[62]In the present case, in contrast, there is no basis to come tothe conclusion that Satish was authorized to receive or act upon arequest for arbitration on behalf of his family members.

33.In the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court inKeshrimal[63], disputes arose in the context of an award given by twoarbitrators instead of four, to whom it was referred. The DivisionBench rejected the contention on behalf of the sons of one of theparties, who claimed not to have assented to such course. TheDivision Bench found that the heads of the branches of the familywere competent to refer to the disputes “as to the division of their

61 Emphasis supplied.

62 Supra (note 10) [paragraphs 4 and 24].

63 Supra (note 11).

Signature Not Verified

joint family property to arbitration of only two arbitrators in place offour”[64]. The High Court held that karta of joint family can make avalid reference to arbitration as he would represent the interest ofother members of his branch with regard to the division of joint familyproperty. This judgment too is of little assistance in the present case,where the characterisation of the property as joint family property isdisputed and the relief sought is of reference to arbitration underSection 11 of the Act. It may also be noted that it is nobody’s case thatthe present disputes are in respect of property of Hindu UndividedFamily headed by karta.

34.The Division Bench of this Court in S.N.P. Punj[65]bound thedaughter of one of the parties to the award on the ground that she hadgiven power of attorney in favor of her father, which had not beenrevoked. The Court found that the parties had put properties purchasedin the names of their children in the common hotch-potch of propertiesavailable for division. These factors are absent in the present case.Further, in S.N.P. Punj[66], the question arose in terms of setting asideof the award and the question of compliance with Section 11 of theAct did not arise.

35.The judgment in Sanjeev Sahni[67]was rendered in an applicationunder Section 8 of the Act. non-signatory to the arbitrationagreement was referred to arbitration in the context of partition offamily property on the ground of direct commonality of subject

64 Page 310 of the judgment [emphasis supplied].

65 Supra (note 43).

66 Ibid.

67 Supra (note 13).

matter. As noted above, the issue of whether the properties in thepresent case are family properties is very much the subject matter ofthe proposed adjudication and the existence and validity of thearbitration clause as against parties other than Satish is also disputed.In such context, I am of the view that this judgment would not apply.36.The judgments in K.V. Narayanaswami[68], Mudi Gowda[69], andAppasaheb[70], as well as the judgment of this Court in Amit Johri[71],deal with the nature of joint family property and its variouscharacteristics. While these issues may be relevant to the adjudicationof the substantive disputes between the parties, the question ofcompliance with Sections 11 and 21 of the Act cannot be decided on apresumption in favour of Anil that the properties in question are jointfamily properties, capable of division in the manner provided. This isthe very point of dispute which has necessitated the reference in thefirst place.

37.On point of principle also, I cannot accept Mr. Verma’ssuggestion that the requirement of proper invocation of arbitrationagainst other parties is technical objection which ought to beoverlooked in line with the objectives articulated in Kale[72], HariShankar Singhania[73], etc. This line of decision emphasises thattechnical or procedural objections to implementation of familysettlements should be rejected in order to give effect to an instrument

68 Supra (note 38).69 Supra (note 39).70 Supra (note 37).69 Supra (note 39).70 Supra (note 37).

71 Supra (note 40).

72 Supra (note 33).73 Supra (note 34).73 Supra (note 34).

Signature Not Verified

which seeks to bring peace and harmony within family. Havingregard to the purposes of notice of invocation, as indicated inAlupro[74], the requirement of putting all individuals on notice as to thelikelihood of proceedings being commenced against them, and beingcalled upon to participate in the constitution of the arbitral tribunalcannot be said to be “technical” objection.

38.For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that only Satish andAnil can be referred to arbitration in the present proceedings. In viewof this conclusion, it is not necessary to examine any other contentionof the parties. Such contentions are left open for adjudication inappropriate proceedings. It is made clear that this judgment has beenrendered only in the context of appointment of an arbitrator underSection 11 of the Act.

E. Conclusion

39.The petition is, therefore, disposed of with the followingdirections:-

a.The petitioner, Anil Goel and respondent No.1, SatishGoel are referred to arbitration for settlement of theirdisputes under the Memorandum of Understanding dated12.11.2014. In the course of hearing, they indicated thatthey wish to nominate Hon’ble Mr. Justice MukulMudgal, former Chief Justice of the Punjab and HaryanaHigh Court, and Hon’ble Dr. Justice M.K. Sharma,former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as theirrespective nominees on the arbitral tribunal. The learnedGoel are referred to arbitration for settlement of theirdisputes under the Memorandum of Understanding dated12.11.2014. In the course of hearing, they indicated thatthey wish to nominate Hon’ble Mr. Justice MukulMudgal, former Chief Justice of the Punjab and HaryanaHigh Court, and Hon’ble Dr. Justice M.K. Sharma,former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as theirrespective nominees on the arbitral tribunal. The learned

74 Supra (note 23).

Signature Not Verified

arbitrators are requested to nominate the third arbitratorin accordance with the agreement, failing which eitherparty may approach this Court in accordance with law.

b.The remuneration of the learned arbitrators will becomputed in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to theAct.computed in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to theAct.

c.It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of AnilandSatishincludingwithregardtoarbitrability,interpretation and enforceability of the MoU, and onmerits are reserved for adjudication by the arbitraltribunal.andSatishincludingwithregardtoarbitrability,interpretation and enforceability of the MoU, and onmerits are reserved for adjudication by the arbitraltribunal.

d.As far as the other members of the family are concerned,all questions with regard to reference to arbitration quathem are left open for adjudication in appropriateproceedings, including in CS (OS) 371/2017 filed byrespondent No.2-Ms. Vinnu Goel. It is made clear thatthe present decision has been rendered on the specificrequirements of Section 11 of the Act.all questions with regard to reference to arbitration quathem are left open for adjudication in appropriateproceedings, including in CS (OS) 371/2017 filed byrespondent No.2-Ms. Vinnu Goel. It is made clear thatthe present decision has been rendered on the specificrequirements of Section 11 of the Act.

e.In the event Anil seeks to invoke the arbitration clause inrespect of any other person at this stage, the effect thereofisalsoleftopenforconsiderationinappropriateproceedings.respect of any other person at this stage, the effect thereofisalsoleftopenforconsiderationinappropriateproceedings.

40.There will be no order as to costs.

PRATEEK JALAN, J

NOVEMBER 15, 2022/‘vp’