Ex-judge to arbitrate Singhania family row

The Supreme Court today favoured arbitration as a suitable way of settling family disputes in corporate houses for effecting settlements instead of legal battle on technical grounds.

Hearing the dispute in the Singhania family over distribution of property, a bench comprising Justice H K Sema and Justice A R Lakshmanan said, "technical considerations should give way to peace and harmony in enforcement of family arrangements or settlements".

Appointing retired apex court judge, Justice S N Variava as an arbitrator to settle within six months the distribution of property that resulted as a consequence of dissolution of a partnership firm owned by Singhania brothers in 1987, the bench advised them to settle their disputes amicably.

"...They must sink their disputes and differences, settle and resolve their conflicting claims once and for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and goodwill in the family," the bench observed.

The bench set aside the Bombay High Court order which had dismissed the arbitration suit filed by Hari Shankar Singhania and other members of the Lakshmipat Singhania family claiming one-third of the share from the 14 immovable properties situated in kanpur and one in mumbai on the ground that application was filed beyond the period of limitation.

Holding that it was an admitted fact that the three branches of Singhania family were entitled to one-third share in immovable properties, the bench said, "parties have to settle their disputes one day or the other".

Besides Lakshmipat, other two branches of Singhania's descendants are from Padmapat and Kailashpat.

The court said the facts of the case clearly showed that the family members of the other two branches of Singhania household were not at all interested in "any conciliation, mediation or arbitration but only interested in enjoying the bulk of the immovable properties of the firm and refusing to carry out their obligations under and pursuant to the deed of dissolution..".

The deed of disslution and the supplementary agreement between the parties was signed on march 26, 1987 and march 28, 1987 respectively.

Maintaining that a stage has come that the real dispute has arisen between the parties as the matter was pending adjudication since 1987 onwards, the bench said, "we should not, therefore, allow respondents to drag the proceedings any further".