ANILKUMAR JINABHAI PATEL (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. versus PRAVINCHANDRA JINABHAI PATEL AND ORS. on 27 March 2018

[2018] 3 S.C.R.

AANILKUMAR JINABHAI PATEL (D) THR. LRs. & ANR.

v.

PRAVINCHANDRA JINABHAI PATEL AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 3313 of 2018 Etc.)

BMARCH 27, 2018

[R. K. AGRAWAL AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:

ss. 31(5) and 34 – Arbitration award – Petition by appellantCNo. 1 u/s. 34 for setting aside the award, filed – Award set aside byDistrict Judge for non-compliance of s. 31(5) – High Court heldthat the petition u/s. 34 was time barred and hence was dismissed –On appeal, held: Facts and circumstances of the case show thatappellant No. 1 was authorized by his family members to receive aDcopy of the award and act on their behalf – Service of arbitralaward on appellant No. 1 amounts to service on his family members(other appellants & respondent) and hence cannot pleadnon-compliance of s. 31(5) – Petition u/s. 34 was therefore barredby limitation.

s. 34 Proviso – Limitation period for – Condonation of – Held:Proviso to s. 34 gives discretion to the Court to condone the delayfor a sufficient cause, but such discretion cannot be extendedbeyond the period of thirty days – Limitation – Delay-Condonationof.

E

F

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 provides for filing of an application for setting aside anarbitral award. Section 34(3) provides that an application for settingaside an award shall not be entertained by the court if it is madeGafter three months have elapsed from the date on which theapplicant had received the arbitral award. The proviso to Section34 further provides that if the court is satisfied that the applicantwas prevented by sufficient cause from making the applicationwithin the prescribed time, it may entertain the application within H

a further period of thirty days ‘but not thereafter’. The words ‘butnot thereafter’ in the proviso are of mandatory nature, and couchedin the negative, and leave no room for doubt. Proviso to Section34 gives discretion to the court to condone the delay for asufficient cause, but that discretion cannot be extended beyondthe period of thirty days, which is made exclusively clear by useof the words ‘but not thereafter’. [Paras 13 and 14] [725-E][726-B-D]

State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damini Construction Co.(2007) 10 SCC 742 – relied on.

2. The undertaking by appellant No. 1, in the award dated03.11.1996 that he and his family members agreed and approvedthe award shows that he was acting for himself and on behalf ofhis family members. Award dated 07.07.1996 was also receivedby him for himself and on behalf of his family members. In interimMOU dated 29.06.1996, Appellant No. 1 signed for self and as apower of attorney holder for his wife and his all sons anddaughters-in-law. Challenging the award dated 07.07.1996, heand his family members have filed a single petition under Section34 of the Act. Likewise they have also filed a single petition foramending the arbitration petition. Appellant No. 1 being the headof his family, was a person directly connected with and involvedin the proceeding and was also in control of the proceeding. Beinghead of the family, he would have been the best person tounderstand and appreciate the arbitral award and take a decisionas to whether an application under Section 34 of the Act wasrequired to be filed or not. In such facts and circumstances,service of arbitral award on appellant No. 1 amounts to serviceon the other appellant Nos.1 (a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10and they cannot plead non-compliance of Section 31(5) of the Act.The application filed under Section 34 of the Act by appellant No.1 and appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 was barredby limitation. [Paras 22, 23 and 26] [729-F-H; 730-A-B;731-D]

Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers andContractors (2005) 4 SCC 239 ; State of Maharashtraand Ors. v. Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 4 SCC 616 –referred to.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

720SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 3 S.C.R.

ACase Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3313of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2012 of the High CourtCof Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Writ PetitionNo. 4669 of 2011

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 3314 of 2018.

D

Basant R., C.A. Sundaram, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advs.,Prashant R. Dahat, Puneet Yadav, T. R. B. Sivakumar, PrashantR. Dahat, Zafar Inayat, M/s K. J. John And Co, Tapesh KumarSingh, Mohd. Waquas, Aditya Pratap Singh, Aniruddha P. Mayee,Shashibhushan Adgaonkar, Avnish M. Oza, Chirag Jain, Advs. for theEappearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Appellants have filed these appeals challenging the judgmentFdated 27.03.2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench atAurangabad in W.P. No. 4669 of 2011 in and by which the High Courtheld that challenge to the arbitral award dated 07.07.1996 was timebarred under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”).

G

3. The facts of the case are that the appellant No.1/AnilkumarPatel and respondent No.1/Pravinchandra Patel are real brothers andsons of Jinabhai. They had three other brothers who were alreadyseparated. So far as the parties before us, they are related asunder:- ANILKUMAR JINABHAI PATEL (D) THR. LRs. v.PRAVINCHANDRA JINABHAI PATEL [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

A

B

C

DEF

APravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel together started thebusiness of fertilizer manufacturing, chemical and real estate at Jalgaon.In the course of business, they set up number of companies and partnershipconcerns and acquired numerous immovable and movable properties.Pravinchandra Patel has three daughters, who are married and settledoutside Jalgaon. Anilkumar Patel has three sons, who are residing withBhim at Jalgaon. As children of Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patelgrew up and in order to avoid any possible litigation, both the brothersand their family members decided to make division of the assets of thefamily. For this purpose, they approached Latikaben (respondent No.12)and Bhikhalal Nathalal Patel (respondent No.11) who is the sister andCbrother-in-law of Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel and partieshave agreed to appoint them as arbitrators. It culminated into an MOUdated 21.05.1996 appointing Latikaben and Bhikhalal Nathalal Patel asarbitrators which was signed by all the members of the family that is theappellants and respondents.

D4. While arbitrators were away to Rajkot due to emergency work,both Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel decided to streamline theongoing business of firms and companies by signing of an interim MOUon 29.06.1996 (IMOU). The covenants of the said IMOU covered thematters relating to bank accounts and withdrawal power, NPK allocationetc. The said IMOU was signed by Pravinchandra Patel for himself andEon behalf of his family members. Similarly, Anilkumar Patel signed inthe IMOU for himself and also as a power of attorney holder for hiswife, his all sons and daughter-in-law.

5. The arbitrators arrived at Jalgaon on 04.07.1996 and continuedwith the arbitration proceeding and passed the award on 07.07.1996F(with a mention of IMOU dated 29.06.1996) under which certainproperties were given to Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patelwhereas some other assets were kept undivided with equal rights andinterest thereon of both groups. The award was written in Gujaratilanguage by hand by the arbitrators and signed by the arbitrators. TheGcopy of the award was given to Pravinchandra Patel and AnilkumarPatel by arbitrators in person which was duly acknowledged by them.Copy of the award bears signature of both Pravinchandra Patel andAnilkumar Patel with recital that they and their family members will actas per the award and will give effect to the same. Then by an award dated 03.11.1996, the issues between appellants and respondents werefinally decided taking note of earlier awards. According to PravinchandraPatel, Anilkumar Patel accepted and acted upon the awards on morethan one occasion.

6. However, Anilkumar Patel and his family members (appellantNos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10) filed an arbitration petitionNo.202 of 2005 under Section 34 of the Act before the District Judge,Jalgaon on 29.11.2005 challenging the award dated 07.07.1996 contendingthat they learnt about the arbitral award only on 11.08.2005 when theywere served with the notice of execution petition filed by PravinchandraPatel alongwith the xerox of the award dated 07.07.1996. Therefore, asper the appellant-Anilkumar Patel, period of limitation starts only from11.08.2005, from the date of their receipt of copy of the award. It wasfurther alleged that, appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10were not included as party in the award dated 07.07.1996 and the awardis not binding on them. They have, inter alia, alleged that the award isa false and fraudulent document. They also emphasized that the signatureof Anilkumar Patel in the arbitral award showing his acknowledgementwas forged and therefore, could not be acted upon.

7. Later on, an application came to be filed by Anilkumar Patelfor himself and on behalf of his family members for an amendmentunder Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. stating that the arbitration petition No.202of 2005 filed initially, did not contain the challenge to award dated03.11.1996 and hence, by an amendment sought to challenge awarddated 03.11.1996 as well. The said application was dismissed on30.06.2006 by the District Court on the ground of limitation which wasfurther challenged through W.P. No.5502 of 2006 before the High Court.The same was remanded to the District Judge on 21.08.2006 forconsideration of the matter afresh. After remand, the District Judge byorder dated 28.09.2006 again dismissed the amendment application onthe ground of limitation. The said order dated 28.09.2006 was againchallenged by Anilkumar Patel under W.P. No.7614 of 2006. The HighCourt vide order dated 13.11.2006 dismissed the writ petition observingthat Anilkumar Patel is adopting tactics of approbate and reprobate andAnilkumar Patel is acting as per his convenience by denying the knowledgeof award dated 03.11.1996 in some court proceedings though in someother proceedings, he has relied on the said award and sought to takeadvantage on the basis of the said award.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A8. Insofar as the challenge to the award dated 07.07.1996, theDistrict Judge vide order dated 14.02.2011 allowed the application underSection 34 of the Act inter alia, holding that the period of limitationprescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act is to be computed from thepoint of time when the party concerned received the copy of the arbitralaward. The District Judge set aside the award holding that number ofBserious issues have been raised in application under Section 34 and thereis nothing to show that Anilkumar Patel was authorised by the otherapplicants to receive a copy of the award on their behalf and it cannotbe said that the appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 hadreceived the award in terms of Section 31(5) of the Act.

C

9. Being aggrieved, Pravinchandra Patel filed W.P. No.4669 of2011. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 27.03.2012 setaside the order of the District Judge holding that the petition filed in theyear 2005 under Section 34 of the Act was time barred. The High Courtheld that sofaras the award dated 03.11.1996, the findings in W.P.No.7614Dof 2006 have attained finality which has foreclosed the right of AnilkumarPatel to challenge the award dated 07.07.1996. The High Courtenumerated various circumstances to hold that Anilkumar Patel and hisfamily members were well aware of the award dated 07.07.1996. TheHigh Court also relied upon various correspondence between the parties,legal proceedings etc. (O.A. No.298A/2001 etc.) to arrive at theEconclusion that Anilkumar Patel received the award dated 07.07.1996.On those findings, the High Court held that the petition filed in the year2005 under Section 34 of the Act is time barred and the petition filedunder Section 34 of the Act challenging the award dated 07.07.1996came to be dismissed.

F

10. On behalf of legal heirs of Anilkumar Patel, it was contendedthat as contemplated under Section 31(5) of the Act, copy of the awarddated 07.07.1996 was not served upon the family members of AnilkumarPatel and mere knowledge as to the existence of the award would not inany manner result in the commencement of period of limitation. TheGlearned senior counsel for the appellants contended that the limitationperiod can be computed only from the day on which the original signedcopy of the arbitral award is received under the provision of Section31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

11. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents hasHdrawn our attention to number of documents to refute appellant’s contention wherein appellant-Anilkumar Patel himself admitted manytimes that the arbitral award was within his knowledge and used theawards dated 07.07.1996 and 03.11.1996 on number of occasionsincluding legal proceedings. Further contention of Pravinchandra Patelis that arbitrators who were none other than their sister Latikaben(respondent No.12) and Bhikhalal Nathalal Patel (respondent No.11)husband of Latikaben who came from Rajkot to Jalgaon to settle thematter amicably between two brothers which was at the instance ofboth the parties and while so, the award cannot be assailed as fabricatedor a biased one.

A

B

12. On the aforesaid rival contentions advanced on behalf of boththe parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and materialsplaced on record, the following points arise for consideration:- C

(1) Whether Anilkumar Patel represented his family in thearbitration proceedings and whether respondents are right incontending that receipt of copy of award by Anilkumar PatelDwas for himself and on behalf of his family members?

(2) Whether the High Court was right in holding that the applicationunder Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996for setting aside the award was barred by limitation?

13. Section 34 of the Act provides for filing of an application forsetting aside an arbitral award. Sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Actlays down the period of limitation for making the application. Section34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reads as follows:- E

34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.-(1) Recourseto a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by anapplication for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3).

F

.........

(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after threemonths have elapsed from the date on which the party makingthat application had received the arbitral award or, if a requesthad been made under Section 33, from the date on which thatrequest had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:

G

Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant wasprevented by sufficient cause from making the application within H

Athe said period of three months it may entertain the applicationwithin a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.

14. Section 34(3) provides that an application for setting aside anaward shall not be entertained by the court if it is made after threemonths have elapsed from the date on which the applicant had receivedBthe arbitral award. The proviso to Section 34 further provides that if thecourt is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient causefrom making the application within the prescribed time, it may entertainthe application within a further period of thirty days ‘but not thereafter’.(vide State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damini Construction Co.(2007)10 SCC 742). The words ‘but not thereafter’ in the proviso are ofCmandatory nature, and couched in the negative, and leave no room fordoubt. Proviso to Section 34 gives discretion to the court to condone thedelay for a sufficient cause, but that discretion cannot be extended beyondthe period of thirty days, which is made exclusively clear by use of thewords ‘but not thereafter’.

D

15. In Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers andContractors(2005) 4 SCC 239, a three Judge Bench of this Court, inrespect to the issue of limitation for filing application under Section 34 ofthe Act for setting aside the arbitral award, held that the period of limitationwould commence only after a valid delivery of an arbitral award takesEplace under Section 31(5) of the Act. In para (8), this Court held asunder:- “8. The delivery of an arbitral award under sub-section (5) ofSection 31 is not a matter of mere formality. It is a matter ofsubstance. It is only after the stage under Section 31 has passedthat the stage of termination of arbitral proceedings within themeaning of Section 32 of the Act arises. The delivery of arbitralaward to the party, to be effective, has to be “received” by theparty. This delivery by the Arbitral Tribunal and receipt by theparty of the award sets in motion several periods of limitationsuch as an application for correction and interpretation of an awardwithin 30 days under Section 33(1), an application for making anadditional award under Section 33(4) and an application for settingaside an award under Section 34(3) and so on. As this delivery ofthe copy of award has the effect of conferring certain rights onthe party as also bringing to an end the right to exercise those F

G

rights on expiry of the prescribed period of limitation which wouldbe calculated from that date, the delivery of the copy of award bythe Tribunal and the receipt thereof by each party constitutes animportant stage in the arbitral proceedings.”

16. In Stateof Maharashtra and Ors. v. Ark Builders Pvt.Ltd.,(2011) 4 SCC 616, while following the judgment in Tecco TrichyEngineers case, held that the expression “...party making thatapplication had received the arbitral award...” cannot be read inisolation and it must be understood that Section 31(5) of the Act requiresa signed copy of the award to be delivered to each party. By cumulativereading of Section 34(3) and Section 31(5) of the Act, it is clear that thelimitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act wouldcommence only from the date of signed copy of the award delivered tothe party making the application for setting it aside.

17. Contention of the appellants is that the other members ofAnilkumar’s family viz., appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondentNo.10, appellant No.1(d) and respondent No.10 did not receive the copyof the award and that they had knowledge of the award only when theexecution petition was filed and when they received the notice in theexecution petition. Contention of appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) andrespondent No.10 is that in terms of Section 31(5) of the Act, copy ofthe award to be delivered to each party to enable them to challenge theaward and since the copy of the award not individually served to them,the period of limitation would start only from the date when they got thecopy of the award.

18. As pointed out earlier, Anilkumar Patel has signed the awardand received the copy of the award with the following endorsement:- “For myself and on behalf of my family members”.

Whether the receipt of the award by Anilkumar Patel with theabove endorsement could be construed as the receipt of the award byhis family members- appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10,is the point falling for consideration.

19. In MOU dated 21.05.1996, Pravinchandra Patel and AnilkumarPatel have appointed their sister Latikaben and her husband BhikhalalNathalal Patel for effecting partition between the two families and boththe families have consented for the same. The MOU was signed by A

BC

DE

F

G

H

APravinchandra Patel and his wife and daughters (respondents No.1 to5) and Anilkumar Patel and his wife and his three sons and one daughter-in-law (appellant No.1 (dead) and appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) andrespondent No.10). The MOU appointing arbitrators (21.05.1996)stipulates that: (i) the award to be in writing; and (ii) to furnish copy ofthe award to each of the members of the families. The relevant portionBof MOU reads as under:- “.....The arbitrators shall write down the particulars of the partitionas well as the terms and conditions for effecting the partition andthe arbitrators shall sign it. The arbitrators shall make as manycopies of it as there are members and shall give each member aCcopy of it. And after that both the families shall act as per theparticulars of partition given by the arbitrators and get the propertiesand business properties partitioned....”

20. As pointed out earlier, while arbitrators were away to Rajkotdue to emergency work, both Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar PatelDdecided to streamline the ongoing business of firms and companies bysigning an interim MOU on 29.06.1996 (IMOU). The covenants of thesaid IMOU covered the matters relating to bank account and withdrawalof power, NPK allocation etc. The said IMOU was signed byPravinchandra Patel with the following endorsement:- E“P.J. Patel (Group No.1) for self and also as Power of AttorneyHolder for wife and all daughters”.

Similarly in the said IMOU, Anilkumar Patel signed for himselfand on behalf of his family members, as seen from the followingendorsement:- F“A.J. Patel (Group No.2) for Self and also as Power of AttorneyHolder for wife, all sons and daughter-in-law.”

21. The award dated 07.07.1996 was signed by both the arbitrators.The award was also signed by Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel.Both of them have undertaken to implement the award with their freewill and pleasure, as seen from the following:-G

“As per this Arbitration “Award”, both the groups and their familymembers have to honestly, wholeheartedly and faithfully act inaccordance with and implement the transaction of the property,the IMOU which is now considered as MOU and the accountingchart in respect of the companies and the firms.

H........

The aforesaid Arbitration Award I agreed to and approved of byand our descendant guardian and heirs. We undertake to implementthe same with free-will and pleasure.”

After their signature in the award which is in Gujarati languagefor having received the copy of the award, Pravinchandra Patel andAnilkumar Patel have stated as under:- “....For ourselves and on behalf of our family members.”

It is pertinent to note that the award also referred to IMOU dated29.06.1996 in and by which the members of the respective families haveauthorized Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel to act on behalf oftheir family members.

22. The award dated 03.11.1996 also refers to the award dated07.07.1996. The award dated 03.11.1996 was also signed byPravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel and both of them haveundertaken that the arbitration award is duly agreed and approved bythem and their family members and further undertaken to act inaccordance with the award and to give effect to the same. The saidendorsement in the award dated 03.11.1996 reads as under:- “The aforesaid arbitration award is duly agreed to and approvedof by me and my family members, descendants heirs and other.

My family members and I absolutely assure to act in accordancewith the award and to give effect to same.”

As discussed earlier, Anilkumar Patel was unsuccessful in hisattempt to challenge the award dated 03.11.1996 which has attainedfinality in terms of the findings in W.P.No.7614 of 2006. Anilkumar Patel’sundertaking in the award dated 03.11.1996 that he and his family membersagreed and approved the award shows that Anilkumar Patel was actingfor himself and on behalf of his family members.

23. Award dated 07.07.1996 was received by Anilkumar Patelfor himself and on behalf of his family members. In interim MOU dated29.06.1996, Anilkumar Patel signed for self and as a power of attorneyholder for his wife and his all sons and daughter-in-law. Challenging theaward dated 07.07.1996, Anilkumar Patel and his family members havefiled a single petition under Section 34 of the Act. Likewise they havealso filed a single petition for amending the arbitration petition No.202 of2005. Anilkumar Patel, being the head of his family, was a person directly A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aconnected with and involved in the proceeding and was also in control ofthe proceeding. Being head of the family, Anilkumar Patel would havebeen the best person to understand and appreciate the arbitral awardand take a decision as to whether an application under Section 34 of theAct was required to be filed or not. In such facts and circumstances, inour considered view, service of arbitral award on Anilkumar Patel amountsBto service on the other appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10and they cannot plead non-compliance of Section 31(5) of the Act.

24. The High Court has enumerated various circumstances whichindicate that Anilkumar Patel was well aware of the award dated07.07.1996 and also relied upon the award in internal communicationCbetween the parties and various legal proceedings. “Inter Office Memo”dated 22.07.1996, sent by Anilkumar Patel to Pravinchandra Patel,seeking for delivery of file of Gat No.266/2 of Bambhori, Taluka Brandol.Anilkumar Patel has stated that in Gat No.266/2 of Bambhori, agriculturalland has come to his share and since some dispute has been raised byDthe party by whom the sale-deed is to be executed, Anilkumar Patelrequested to handover the file maintained in connection with theagricultural land mentioned in Gat No.266/2. The said Inter Office Memoclearly shows that even on 22.07.1996, Anilkumar Patel had acted uponthe award dated 07.07.1996.

E25. Central Bank of India has filed recovery proceeding inO.A.No.298-A/2001 against Pravinchandra Patel, M/s. PatelNarayandas Bhagwandas Fertilizers Private Limited and others. In thesaid proceeding before DRT, Anilkumar Patel has referred to thearbitration award passed in July, 1996 and that he has no interest in M/s.Patel Narayandas Bhagwandas Fertilizers Private Limited. Based onFsuch stand taken by Anilkumar Patel in O.A.No.298-A/2001, DRTobserved that Anilkumar Patel had resigned from the Directorship ofthe said company and exonerated him from the liability to the bank anddismissed O.A.No.298-A/2001 against Anilkumar Patel and AtulkumarMaganlal Patel. The High Court referred to the said DRT proceedingsGand various other circumstances in which Anilkumar Patel had takenadvantage of arbitration award and the High Court held as under:- “....The respondents, obviously, wherever it was possible for them,at several places, took advantage of the arbitration award andnow since obligation on their part is to be complied in favour of ANILKUMAR JINABHAI PATEL (D) THR. LRs. v.PRAVINCHANDRA JINABHAI PATEL [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

the petitioner, have started challenging the award, after nineyears.....”

Various circumstances brought on record clearly show thatAnilkumar Patel was authorized by other appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) andrespondent No.10 to receive copy of the award and act on their behalfand we find no reason to take a different view from that of the HighCourt.

26. As rightly observed by the High Court, Anilkumar Patel hasgone to the extent of even disputing his signature in the award dated07.07.1996 by drafting choreographed petition. Having accepted theaward through Anilkumar Patel, being the head of the family, appellantNos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 cannot turn round and contendthat they had not received the copy of the award. The High Courtrightly held that “....Receiving the copy by Anilkumar on behalf ofhimself and respondent nos. 2 to 6, under an acknowledgment, is interms of compliance of Section 31(5) of the Act and Section 34(3)thereof.....”and that the application filed under Section 34 of the Act byAnilkumar Patel and appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10was barred by limitation. We do not find any good ground to interferewith the impugned judgment.

27. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. No costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H