IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 13*" DAY OF OCTOBER
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAl:\%_SI~{AiS?"1;A.l§)T4(§C)UV§)IiAi§*4._:é
C.M.P. No.206;¥.3009'v- A: A
Between 2
A.B.Ma11i.kar_;una .. v
Aged about 59 years,,_ . V
Son of A.M.BasaVeg::wd-3, I
Residing at NO395, g5"
12"' Main, 1
R.M.V.EXtensi0n.,_ 5
Sadashivanvagar,
Bangalore-1560 Q8'C;._--v _ _' .. Petitioner
[ By Sri Baeavaprabhifi Pa-£ii;"Si".COunseI
for Giridhar"&_.Co., A(_:1ve.ca£e:5; }
1 .' JLibI_ia'r1tV 'Bios-_\}s_ Limited
A Cioxrgpéiriyflvineqrporated under
The COmp_anie_s*Act, 1956.
_ And having ité registered
gOfi'1ce at :
* VP1m;No. IA, Sector ISA,
T~[Nnvida;~.eU.P.
_ " _Indiaw$01301,
__ "*Re'p. By its Director.
Id
2. Jubliant Biosys Limited,
Plot No.96, Industrial Suburb
11 Stage, Yeshwantpur,
Bangalore-560 022,
Rep. By its Director.
3. Clinsys Clinical Research Limited,
A company incorporated under
The Companies Act, 1956,
And having its registered
Office at :
Plot No.1A, Sector 16A,
Noida, U.P.
India-201 301,
Rep. By its Director.
4. Clinsys Clinical ResearehVV_I..td._,V V
Plot No.96, Industrial S1:1'bnrb-R _
II Stage, Yeshwcanitpnr, i _
Banga1ore--5_60'Oa2§';,_..if. ' »
Rep. By its Director. » A' Respondents
( By sr1"s"}iéka:§t,?she£Ey ajagagii K-ugfiéf Shetty,
Advocates}. " * ' '
This"Ci.V11 Misefijetitiozn is filed under Section 11 (5) of the
:_v"Arb_itra.tion ;and..._ConciIia--ti~on Act, 1996, praying to appoint Sole
'Arbitrator to decide over the dispute, which has arisen between
th.e'petitioner"a_r'1d the respondents for resolution of the claims
of the petitioner iriat-erins of the notice dated 10.41.2009 of the
' pfiétitioner as at--V':3gr1:'1exure~J.
This.' M1sc.Pet1tior; having been heard and reserved
"orders on "1691 September 2009, pronounced the orders on
'1 October 2009.
\<\}?
,3-
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 31(8) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996, {hereinafter referi”ede.1,Vo
as ‘Arbitration Act of 1996’ in short) praying for it
of Sole Arbitrator to decide over the dispute ”
between the petitioner and respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case areas under : Petitioner is:;i..1’ie
absoiute owner of the immovable’=_p’1’o_perty’-bearing: No.94,
Industriai Suburb, 2′”? Y€S}l\RlaHth]._)L,I1′,
Bangalore-580 022, with constfixiptfthilon{th.ereo–n’.; _’R€SpOI1d€l’ll.’~% 1
and 3 areithelveonipanlies ineorpoi’ateVd under the provisions of
Companiesvvlfiet. V1956.j:>fl’nelV”petitioner and respondent No.1
entered into alLease.A’gree_1nent as per Annexure–‘B’ dated 8′”
:_v”Se.ptemb’er52OO8. LiI<ewi–se, another agreement of lease was
entered 'vintoéllbetwteen petitioner and respondent No.3 as per
Anr1exure-'C'« very day i.e., on 8"'! September 2008. I-'rior
thereto. a. Memorandum of Understanding was entered into
-r.’be:wée”n.t._ the petitioner and the 154 respondent as per
Ar:ne;xgure~?A’ on 6″} August 2008. Consequently, the
it ‘ ‘aforeumentioned property was leased in favour of respondents E
=\\~s*>
and 3 as per the Lease Deeds vide Annexures~’B’ and ‘C’. E: is
the case of the petitioner that respondents I and
affiliated companies and part of Jubiliant OI’ga11OSyfS~.€.}i'(lt’l’é.i::’
Companies and the companies are under””..the:f_”»sa.:n’e–.d
management. The Memorandum of Ilnders«tarldiI-mg’. a”s._well”;’.1s7
the Lease Deeds set out the terms V4and.V_condi1ions ‘~agrj<}(:d'V
between the parties. In accordairieeV'V"with of
Understanding, the PEtit'ioner a'dditi<m;.11
facilities demanded by the schedule
property. Aeeordin,_~§;'to_theAVpetiiiloaer;fh.eVV"agreed to all me
demands made" By §:–relspon_d.ent_ l*€o.*«l_' and provided all the
additionalfacilities even t.o"the extent of making' substamial
Changes and irnprovem:en_tbs'the schedule property to soil it)
the convenience VofVrespond'enl. No.1 and its requirements,
Je'onseqi,__1.éEnt}-y has inc1:irr'e'd additional expenditure of Rs.1 emJ:"e
for alterationsl earned out based on the representation / de.11":e.-mat
rrnader respondents No.1. The parties have 2.-igjreed :.":::it'.
vW._'__respondentNo.1 will continue in possession of the propertjs 2.1533
:_ar~iessee'=for a block period of Eiiteen years. Howe\Ie.r._ the Lcta.:»se
l"3leed.s reveal that the "1oek~in–per1'od" of lease would be for :35
W
-§_
months i.e., three years. Ultimately. the letters ol’terrr1inaI_in
of lease dated 8.12.2008 as per Annexures-‘D’ and ‘E’ sen: by
respondent No.1 and 3 are received by the petitioner. h”;-“‘>l’f;’:”\,’\/’
of the termination of lease agreements coupled with oi’
the Lease Deeds, the petitioner called upon the 1″c?:slpondet§{si u
make the payment of the rents for a period it
the period of Lock in and Notice period) :to?:.alirrL;.§ltolla é*;?Ej’_’
Rs.6,59,-40,000/-. vide letterydated “–‘i_7;v–12.2osa. f: as “gp;é>’1e
Annexure–‘F’ to the writ Petition. resPoii.den–t;s likfive :’~${“%’lt
reply on 12.2.2009 as per ,—Annex’:.i:res§_f’G’x”and “H’;”denyi1’1g the,
prayer of the petitioner.
3. From i’t..ils’-clear’ that the dispute has a1’isse:’a
between the partiesrajndVtheasaine needs to be resolved.
C1ause~1_9_ of bothivthe.’–Le’asé”:Deeds reveals that any dispuie
la’riSing’.lo{uti,_0f the Lease”‘Deeds or any matters reiat:ing th(:1’r.?l..<},
lslaalltlbe.1r'eferred:"'t–o arbitration, which shall be decided in
acoorda1iee"i£fjvth the Arbitration an.d Conciliatiori Act. léliéiiéi.
"Such shall be held in Bangalore and the Cotirtea in
" «ifj;v'B_ar.1ga1ore" alone will have jurisdiction. By iravolging the .sai<;l
Vs
~u()_
ciatzse, this petition is fiied praying for appoin1:rnent otf__.e.;§e
Arbitrator to resolve the dispute.
4. Sri Basava Prabhu Patti. learned Senior ‘Coa,,:11′:,:.=;e,1′
appearing on behalf of petitioner su’brnits« ._i.h,211′ -;1here_
dispute that the lease agreements were ent.e1’ed into’vbet\.=;=r.§;=§i-*’av1.it
the petitioner and respondent Qma
petitioner and respondentvNog.3 ast’per}t.nn’e;;L11*c?fiLC)”: Since the
disputes have arisen between the l-ea:;e
Deeds and the matters “.at,§.;Eai1’.1″ator is to be
appointed for if V
5. iearned counsel
appearing he.haif conteiided that since the
lease agreements’ between “the parties are evidenced by
._”i111regist_ei’ed-.Lease Deecisfthe same cannot be acted upon §E:..)r
enforeingiCta1ise”‘No’;–19 relating to arbitration agreement, 1-ant?
” V’ =.__,vthat single pt§’titfCgT1:: is not maintainable under Section 11 {E3} of
Vh~.._.t1’ié3 _’AI’bitrati’o;1 Act of 1996 as two lease deeds are involxzezt in
in other words. the respondents <.:.~on'iend that
_pe«tititg11er ought to have filed two separate pet it §.()1'1i'-3.
\gj\.
6. in the matter on hand. the }ease c.leec:is in _qru_es_: 3;-1:11
containing the arbitration clause are in wx’i1i1″1g a11_cE3_’are’ V.
by both the parties. They are ur1regist.ere:.i’;”‘”liiefOrdeij 1.0.
appreciate the rival contentions. it ‘is relefirguiatp i.AoV”‘nd£e=..__%Em:’
provisions of Section 7 of the Arb1t.ratiori’.V_A€’£ of:
107 of Transfer of Property Act. arid ‘Sec_?Vti0:11 of me
Registration Act, 1908.
“Section 7 _;.:V’1.1._r’bit;:_’rA’VVc’tV–tV’i’¢:v:§. ¢tgrtfeen¢era:tV’V~ {1} In
this Part, “arbitrati0ri’h’agreerrtest” :.zg.1’eemer1t
by the parties _Vt0-::_4’_”S;:_1x1V3I.1d’ii: yttrjriatjjbitratiprit ail <31' ('remain
disputes whieh h':;;Ve&Vaf1:'jIser1pr v.r'r1'i"(ih"'I'1r'1ay ztrise between
them in respect of 'relationship, whether
contractual or hot.
(2%) arbittrnatiion agreement may be in the form
; of any arbitEratid’11.AC1ause in a Contract or in 1.11:? §’o1’rI1 of a
separate saVgr._eerfIerit;..
A {:3} Auarbitration agreemem. shali be in writing.
.’ . ;(-4} A11. arbitration agreement is in writing if it is
contained in M»
(a) A document signed by the parties:
_ 3 AL
{b} An exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or
other means of E.elecon1mur1ica1.ion which
provide a record of the agreement: or
(c} An exchange of statements of elairn
defence in which the existence of__ 3
agreement is alleged by one party an'(l._11o:t:”- L”
denieci by the other. ~
{5} The reference in a c()ntract”1_o:’*a :””lr)cnme11t’~
containing an arbitration’~…claus”ey<.'nsti’t1.i’:es”‘
an arbitration agreenaentlllifyvtlzey cont-a_ct ‘is
writing and thereference iss–such-..as to rnalce
that arbitration clause of tlie._cQz’é’£:;ract.”
Section… of ‘i’TC!__!’_!.$fer. ‘.Pr¢).g)TVe’ér’t:; Act : ~
Leases” hdljv riifm’le”–.;”*- A “lease of immovable
propkerty ‘f1fon1.”‘vyearb “:.o””year_ or for any term
exceeding one yea.r;o_1’ “reserving a yearly rent, can
be made only by r’egis”i,’e1’e£l instrL1.rnenl_
?”2~”1lllVl’otl1er leases of immovable property may
V .feV:::h*c;~ by a “registered insl.run’1ent or by
‘-oral Vagreerlnvent accompanied by deiivery of
posse¢:§sior~I’.
VVVWhere a lease of ilnmovable pm};)erty is
Vr;2ade by a registerecl instr:..:.me:”:E. such
instrument or, Where there are more iI’1f:él§”LJ.I’1’1€I’11ZS
V’
i 10 e
Provided that an unregistered document
affecting immovable property and required by this
Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 [4 of
1882), to be registered may be received as
evidence of a Contract in a suit for
performance under Chapter II of the
Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877] or as’ev1eer;ee of 1
collateral transaction not required tobve effectedpu
by registered instrument.
It is also relevant to note Clause’ l[a] and’fC1–eius’eE3 [a] 8!
(1) of the respective Lease llleeds thus : V
” Clause Ila: :~ the rent
herein the V covenants herein
contai_ned_, hereby agree to demise
unto th’e_Lesse’e_, of lease, the Schedule
Property thevsame unto the Lessee, for
A 2§.j”i>ez%iod’ll.9f 1eo””–[ehe Hundred Eighty] months.
A ‘ an aggregate monthly rent of
._ (Rupees Elevan Lakhs seventy
Aseven.~’E’ho’usand and Five hundred oniy] on or
beforefithe 10″ day of the month. in advance. In
‘y if ‘the event of any deiay in payments of rent, the
“;:V”Lessee shalt be iiable to pay interest @ 2% per
month for the period of delay.
*5}
Vbli:
Clause 3 la) :- To pay the monthly rent in
respect of the Schedule Property, in advance, on.._l
or before the 10″” day of the concerned month;
Without the necessity of any notice or deIn_and=._ it
from the Lessor, subject, however,
deductions required to be n’1ade__
event that the Lessor produces av..ta;~;:_ €X€II!1§_?:il:3’11”
certificate, the Lessee shall _ded1,r’ct.__anyA
SOL1I’C€.
Clause 3 (ii Ja.nd’_V__Lessee
agree to an es_calatio:i””o’f* at of the
monthly last’_pay’abieVon_ce=in’ every three (3)
Years.” * ‘
The leaselof im1noirabl,e.”prop.erty is defined in Section 105
of the Trarisfer A transfer of right to enjoy a
ibonsiderativonlddof a price paid or promised to be
or on specified occasions is the basic
x””‘V’fabric lease. The provision says that such a transfer
– madevexpressly or by implication. Once there is such a
right to enjoy a property, a lease stands created.
. __second paragraph of Section 107 of the Transfer of
\\/S”
M12-
Property Act clarifies that a lease by orai agreernent
accompanied by delivery of possession is sufficient, if lease
does not fall in first paragraph of Section 107. ‘
if the document is not registered, but_the’_1essee’was »indu:c.tedtgV if
in possession, it is enough for the pu:1¢posfeicre_a’tionn o1″f’j”t1rai.:
relationship between the parties;’:_Ii1. the case of ‘0NY~i—vs– r L’
K.C.ITTO0P 82. SONS ( 2900 (6)_:scc«.,.f394j; ‘ t_ held that,
when a lease is transfer property and
such transfer can be made or…’hy1vp,in1p1ication, the
mere fact that into existence
would not stand determine whether
there through such deed.
When it is that the respondents were
inducted into possessiontof building by the owner thereof
the leasevdeeds and that the respondents were
“‘re’nt:”or’ agreed to pay rent in respect of the
V.Vvbuildingfthegiegaieicharacter of the respondents possession has
gtovbe att1’ihujt.ed to a jural relationship between the parties.
jurai relationship cannot be placed anything different
V”
V. 13 _
from that of lessor and lessee falling within the purview of the
second para of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act:–.__
7. In the case of BURMAH SHELL OIL D1STRI;*3:t:I’Ii’h_’*J:(}vv¢–
vs~ KHAJA MIDHAT NOOR (AIR 1988 so 1470);}: pé.::~2§;5,l:’.ite
is observed thus :
” In view of the paragraphs 1o*:7_ ¢; .th§ ‘vii A
Act, since the lease was for “a _ period exceeding.i.oneVVV
year. it could only have _ extend:_edV’: a
registered instrument.v_execatedxt.:loyVVjboth the”les”sor
and the lessee. the registered
instrument, the leases-shaill be “lease
from month’to,i:i1′:nonth”; the very
languag.eth.e Act which postulates
thatva lease_oj”»” property from year to
year, for exceeding one year. or
,, .i_§eserving .._vvyearl_1:,v rent. can be made on a
v’Vi’regEisterecl_ instrarnent. In the absence of reatstered
V V must be a monthlu lease. The lessee
A. the;_§;tth–lessee in facts of this case continued
“to in possession of the property on paument
ofrent as a tenant from month to month. The High
A it _C_7?ourt so found. We are of the opinion that the Htqh
‘ Court was gig’ ht.”
(Emphasis supplied)
-14.,
In the matter on hand, Clause 1 (a) and Clause 3(aj”–and
(i) [mentioned supra} of the Lease Deeds prima facie,..r_eJve,ai,.
the lessees have not only agreed to pay monthly-._:revn’ti, V’
before 10th of concerned month, butjaA1Aso’tr)g_ pay;
periodically. Hence, i find that
remain in possession for about ‘three months*..as_.t1;ie tenants V
from month to month. a A _
8. Moreover, the 155:7 49 of the
Registration Act specificafly'”mfentionsg unregistered
document may. the received as .__«’eiii<t1e11ce of any collateral
transaction' effected by registered document.
A document rea_ui1'ed"i:iy .1_a'W__gt'o.,b*e registered, if unregistered, is
inadmissible as eyide1fice'*of *9; transaction affecting immovable
'Vprope1"i.3.xf:; but it mayKloe"'atimitted as evidence of coilateral facts.
or_ffo'ra'ny 'co_iIatera1–purpose, that is for any purpose other than
that'creatirigI,_ declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing
vff=._g__4a.right to immovable property. The proviso clearly empowers
the Courts to admit any unregistered document as evidence of
gcdollaterai transaction not required to be registered. { See the
W
— 1.5 —
judgments in the cases of (1) Satish Chand Makhan and
others –vs– Govardhan Das Byas and others
(MANU/SC/0691/1998 : AIR 1984 SC 143), and (2) Rai
Chand Jain —vs– Miss.Chandra Kanta Kftosla
(MANU/SC/0185/1991 :AIR 1991 SC 744).
In the case of National Agriculturallbogoaieratioé _
Marketing Federation India Ltd., -fiJs-
2007 (5) SCC 692), the Apex_C_ourt lhelcls. that lat: l:arbitr’ation”V.s
clause is a collateral term in th’efi’contrae’t,_ivhiehlllrelates to
resolution of disputes, notllllgjteiforniance. H°E’\}Ven if the
performance of the contract-Ieo:nes5to_.-,an.’.e:od on account of
repudiati’on,:fiustration _o’r.u};$reach of contract, the arbitration
agreement Woiilcl the purpose of resolution of
disputes arising under or in connection with the contract. This
.A’–._plosit_i.on statu-t.orily recognised under Section 16(1) of the Act,
Wliieh,Vtiriter..,,aiio;”‘f)roVides that an arbitration clause which
V _forrns'”–parf__t ofthe contract, has to be treated as an agreement
:'”v’.l’*–independent of the other terms of the contract and a decision
contract is null and Void shall not entail ipso jure the
‘veinxralidity of the arbitration clause.
W
-{6_
9. From the definition of the “arbitration agreement”
under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act of 1996, it is cle’.ar’»that
the arbitration agreement does not require I’6giStl7afi’OI._1.”.VVj’
particular form is also prescribed. AI} that is that _& it
the arbitration agreement has :.o'”” be ._ in
unregistered Lease Deed, can be looked. intogfor=coIia.teraI’,
purpose. The unregistered lease agreements “containing V
arbitration clause can be psegié[g’a.téd._ and”*treated as
independent agreement signe_d by both the
parties which is..::bindir;ig’ An arbitration
agreement which ‘recognised by the Act. It is
necessarypthat be reduced in writing and the
agreement b’etWeenVVVthe:parti_es on such written terms is to be
_yVestab1js§hed. As V’a’forementioned, the arbitration agreement is
in V,not’reegui.red.’to’A’be in any particular form. If the intention of the
pa;.tie.3_ the dispute to an Arbitrator, and if it can be
‘clear1y”—ascertained from the terms of the agreement, or from
facts “and circumstances of the case, it is immaterial
wdhegthcri or not the agreement is registered. ( see the case of
-17-
NANDAN BIOMATRIX LIMITED -113» D.I. OILS LIMITED [
(2009) 4 SCC 4-95).
10. The arbitration clause is quite distinct_.–frlo’in’ .
clauses of the contract. Other clauses ofmthe agreernéjray tmp’ose l u ”
obligation, which the parties undertalge t_ow.ards. detach
But the arbitration clause does7not
parties, any obligation in favourthe The
arbitration agreement em’bodies betvtteen the
parties that, in case of settled by an
Arbitrator or Umpi_red-ajsliihthe lease be?’it—-isilpertinent to note
that there is niateriial differenéje ginfianflarbitration agreement,
inasmuch in’ lccolntraet; the obligation of the parties
to each othercannotl”‘general, be specifically enforced and
breach such tern1’s._.ot contract results only in damages. The
v’arbi’trat_ion «however can be specifically enforced by the
maci2.in’eryA it”_the’V.l.:;’Arbitration Act. In the case of ASHOK
frgansfes .a’Ns47″ANoTHER ~vs~ GURUMUKH DAS SALUJA
it otrfzsks (AIR 2004 so 1433), it has been categorically
in the scheme of Arbitration Act, 1996, the
it arbitration clause is separable from other clauses of a Deed
V”?
-13,
and it constitutes an agreement by itself. The Apex Court in its
recent judgment in the case of P.1m4NOHAR REDDY
BROS. -~vs~ MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS (Az1é’.éooQ— _
1776], has observed that, an arbitration cla_u’s”e;’~ v’w,eli»,.v ll”
known, is part of the contract. It being afoollaterale.terrrilineed’
not, in all situations, perish w:3’th«.__eoniirigll’toV an_v:lvle.nd..,_V.of jthe
contract. It may survive. This of the
arbitration clause is Airbus, the
arbitration Clause which shall be
treated as an agifeeifitehnt .::5,ncief5endent”xof–other terms of the
contract. ‘ «V.,_tl1e_ Arbitral Tribunal that the
contract is vnulll=and’ Void,’ not entail ipsojure the invalidity
of the arbitration cllause. A
i , above, it is clear that the arbitration clause
in the”‘lagreen*ientVl.l.sliall have to be treated as an independent
V lvagreernent betv.’een the parties and will have to be enforced as
:.”.A,§i;1LCrlit _’_I’he”said Clause/agreement does not depend upon the
invalidity of the agreement between the parties.
W’
041904
12. There is no requirement that the arbitration
agreement should be registered. Where the statute [Section 7
of the Arbitration Act of 1996) has gone to great lengthsil~tro
define exactly what is meant by the term “in .
precluded from adding another term to the defir1i’Li’on_.Vv blnideedisi it
it is contrary to all rules of construction to reiadayxfords linto_anvr it
Act unless it is absoiutely necessaryto dorsol Since’l’sta_i§.ute ;
is abundantly clear and unambiguously’ ‘this Cllourtldoesvgnot find
any reason to read certain the _One of the main
objectives of the Arbitrationyszict of .l_9£l_6,”isV.to~:l..nfii–nimise the role
of the Court; additional requirernerits to the Act is
antithetical to a adds a number of extra
requirements »»seals, registration and originals,
I would be enhancVingV”my”ro1’e; not minimising it. What is even
rn-ore Worrisoniey is thatiiie parties’ intention to arbitrate would
b’es_’_fo-Llyeéi Section 7 of the Arbitration Act of 1996
does’ require}: that the parties stamp the agreement. it
xivoyuld be ~~i.nC;r>rrect to disturb the Pariiamenfs intention when it
.A__is”‘soV clearly stated and when it in no Way conflicts with the
ll” .___”(ionlstitution.
‘YD
Q0-
13. The next contention of the respondents that the
petitioner ought to have filed two petitions instead of too
technical in nature. May be, the petitioner could _
petitions. However, the petitioner has chosen’»–to:r.fi’l’e.: sing1e”=
petition. Mere filing of single petition
throw away the case of the .petitioner, At
petitioner may be directed to g:e’tv’:of’:court fee.
Such a procedure may cureiihe it
14. Since the. disputesihhave to the lease
agreements, .and4 in question clearly
reveal that the to refer the matter to
arbitration for :d’i–spute, it is a fit case to exercise
jurisdiction (6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act,’ ~ Accordingly, the following order is
made:
Just_ice:'”Kfihivashankar Bhat, Retired Judge of this
_Court;~– .’.,N¢;47oi/29, 12th Main, R.M.V. Extension,
W H ” téadashivanagar, Bangalore–80, is appointed as Sole Arbitrator
reselye the dispute between the parties. Learned Arbitrator
‘:’_”eon—treceipt of copy of this order wili enter upon the reference,
A»
.,2].,
issue notice to the parties and then proceed to resolye the
dispute in accordance with Arbitration and C0I1CillEi’tit;3:.I1_’A(V3’€,
1996.
Office is directed to send the ‘copy of this” ”
learned Arbitrator forthwith. It is furtheridirectedl tire
original papers if any, filed 2-1lVo’ng the
petitioner to produce the same befoie the Arbitrator. V}
Petitioner is directed to pay ._set of court fee in
the registry of this office witl’iinffor:.r today.
It is rna_.cie. tl1a_’t__th_e le_arr;ed llrbitrator shall not be
bound by the,Vobseityationrswwhich have been made in
this judglmenty ‘l7lieA:.tjqcbseryati’ons have been made only to
decideyythis arbitration petition.
‘ yx ‘- vsrfhé”Petition is Vcviillowed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE