* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: July 27, 2009
Date of Order: July 30, 2009
+RP 80/2009 in Arb.P. 75/2006
% 30.07.2009
Purna Nand ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeev Kanwal, Advocate
Versus
MCD ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for MCD
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
1. This review petition has been made by the petitioner /applicant for reviewing the order dated 19th January 2009 passed by this Court. It is submitted by petitioner that petitioner had filed a petition under Section 11(6) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of the Arbitrator and this Court considering the general rules and conditions dated 29 th July 1999 [which came into force on 29th July 1999) observed that the petitioner had not followed the procedure as laid down in the Arbitration Clause and, therefore, dismissed the petition.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the work order was placed on the petitioner on 9th March 1999, 18th March 1999 and 17th June 1999 and at that time the old General Rules and Condition of MCD were in force and the petitioner was governed by clause 25 of old General Rules & Arb.P.75/2006 Purna Nand v.MCD Page 1 Of 3 Conditions of MCD (respondent herein). The present counsel for petitioner who discovered the mistake, filed the old and applicable General Rules & Conditions with rejoinder. However, the rejoinder could not come on record since it was lying under office objections and these objections were not persuaded by the previous counsel and remained unattended with the Registry. It is only when the counsel for applicant inspected the Court file, after seeing the judgment on website that he realized that rejoinder was not brought on Court record. It is submitted that the mistake in filing the wrong arbitration clause and General Rules and Conditions of MCD was discovered by the present counsel only thereafter. A prayer is made that the order passed by this Court considering the new General Rules & Conditions be recalled and the instant petition be decided in accordance with Clause 25 of the old General Rules & Conditions.
3. In reply to the review application, it has not been denied that the present General Rules & Conditions came into force on 29 th July 1999 whereas the contract was awarded to the petitioner prior to that, when the old General Rules & Conditions were in force. It is obvious that the petitioner had made a mistake in filing the arbitration clause of the initial General Rules & Conditions. This mistake was discovered by the petitioner at the time of filing of rejoinder but the rejoinder did not reach the Court file because of its being under office objections. Considering this aspect of the matter, I consider that the order passed by this Court on the basis of initial General Rules & Conditions of MCD which provided an altogether different arbitration clause and different procedure of invoking arbitration has to be recalled.
4. Keeping in view the above situation, I, allow this review petition. The Arb.P.75/2006 Purna Nand v.MCD Page 2 Of 3 order dated 19th January 2009 passed by this Court dismissing the petition is hereby recalled.
5. The review petition stands disposed of.
Arb.P. 75/2006 List this petition for fresh arguments on 12th October 2009.
July 30, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd Arb.P.75/2006 Purna Nand v.MCD Page 3 Of 3