Facts of the case
C.S. Goenka died in 1985 leaving behind his last Will dated October 28, 1982. In this Will, he appointed his daughter Mrs. Sushila Rungta as the sole executrix (the person who manages and distributes the assets of the testator as per the Will). Radhe Shyam, who claimed to C.S. Goenka’s adopted son, along with his wife, asked the Court to recognise them as the legal heirs after the demise of C.S. Goenka through filing a Substitution petition under CPC. This led to a dispute over who will be the legal representative of C.S. Goenka. To settle the matter, the Court appointed an Arbitrator (a neutral third party).
When the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, he clarified that all pending disputes would also be referred to him, implying that the court had applied its mind and referred the pending probate suit to Arbitration. Mrs. Sushila N. Rungta did not agree to submit the matter to the Arbitrator arguing that the parties never consented to Arbitration, so the case shouldn’t be decided by an Arbitrator and that only the Probate Court has the authority to decide matters related to Wills and Probate. Further, she contended that, as she was the sole Executrix as per the Will, the Probate Court should grant her probate and an Arbitrator is not authorised to do the same.
Issue before the court
- Whether the Arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide the probate suit ?
- Whether the appointment of the Arbitrator without the consent of both parties is void ?
Judgement
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court has appointed an Arbitrator only after the consent of the parties to the Arbitration, which was evident from the Respondent Counsel’s letter that included the Probate case for Arbitration.
However, the Court stated that “consent cannot confer jurisdiction nor an estoppel against statute.” It means that, just because both the parties have agreed to, doesn’t give the Arbitrator the power to decide on such things and moreover, a Court cannot confer an authority where the law does not provide scope for the same.
Thus, the Court held that the Arbitrator would not have jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate matters regarding the grant of probate, and this matter would be heard by the Probate Court, while all other pending disputes could be adjudicated by the arbitrator.