Suresh J. Pimparkar Vs. Charkop Om Gayatri Chs Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....thus, where loan was granted by bank of india under agricultural finance scheme towards purchase of air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories. use of the air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories in case of applicant who is a farmer can only be for purpose of drilling a bore-well for purpose of irrigation in process of carrying on agricultural activities. thus, it is apparent that loan was availed of by applicant-farmer for agricultural and land development purposes because a bore-well would go to increase the utility of agricultural land by ensuring round the year irrigation. the instrument in question would therefore fall within scope of complete remission granted to instrument of mortgage under government notification dated 23.3.1979 and hence not liable to stamp duty under article 36 of schedule i of the act. - 2. therefore, the issue is, whether a third person can intervene in a proceeding like this under section 34 of the act......the parties, where the intervenor was not a party.2. therefore, the issue is, whether a third person can intervene in a proceeding like this under section 34 of the act.3. admittedly, the intervenor was not the party to the basic agreement between the parties where there is an arbitration clause. admittedly, there is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent/society. the applicant/intervenor is a subsequent purchaser. principally, a person/party who is not a party to the arbitration agreement cannot be permitted to intervene in a petition under section 34 of the act against the award. the remedy is elsewhere. it is not permissible in view of the scheme and purpose of the arbitration act itself, besides want of agreement. the dispute of the third person or a member of the society against the society is no reason to permit such person and even to add as a party now. there was no such application moved before the arbitral tribunal.4. the applicant/intervenor's dispute, even if any, is with the respondent/society. that, even otherwise, cannot be gone into in this proceeding. i am not deciding any right of the intervenor. the liberty is granted to the intervenor to move.....