Pawan Manish Shinde vs Union Of India, Through The ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2268 Bom

     Judgment                                              1                                mca332.16.odt




                                                                                       
                      
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                               
                           MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 332  OF 2016




                                                              
     Pawan Manish Shinde, 
     Aged about 22 years, 
     Occupation : Business,
     R/o. Chandrashekhar Nagar 




                                                
     Kamptee, District : Nagpur-02.

      
                                ig                                               ....  APPLICANT.

                                            //  VERSUS //
                              
     1.  Union of India,
         Through the Principal Director,
      

         Defence Estate, Ministry of 
         Defence, Southern Command,
   



         Manekji Mehta Marg, 
         Pune-411001.

     2. The Defence Estate Officer, 
        Mumbai Circle, Kolaba, 





        Mumbai - 400 005. 

                                                       .... NON-APPLICANTS
                                                                         . 
      ___________________________________________________________________
     Shri M.K.Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicant. 





     Shri Ambrish Joshi, Advocate for Non-applicant.  
     ___________________________________________________________________

                                  CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : MAY 04, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

Judgment 2 mca332.16.odt

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The applicant has approached this Court under Section 11 of

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying that the arbitrator be

appointed to resolve the dispute.

4. The non-applicants have opposed the application on various

grounds, one of which is that as per Clause 32 of the Terms and Conditions of

the Licence, the period for appointing the Arbitrator is not laid down and the

non-applicants could have appointed the Arbitrator within 30 days from the

receipt of request from the applicant, however, the applicant in the notice

sent by him requested that Arbitrator be appointed within two days and then

he rushed to this Court. It is submitted that notice given by the applicant is

defective and the application is premature.

At the time of hearing the learned advocate for the applicant

submitted that Arbitrator can be appointed as per Clause 32 of the Terms and

Conditions of the Licence which lays down that the dispute between the

parties should be referred to Principal Director, Defence Estates, southern

Command, Pune. In view of this submission made on behalf of the applicant,

the objections raised on behalf of the non-applicants are not required to be

considered.

Judgment 3 mca332.16.odt

6. I find that the claim made by the applicant is required to be

referred to the Arbitrator as per Clause 32 of the Terms and Conditions of the

Licence. The claim is a live claim and cannot be said to be stale claim. This

Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application.

7. Considering the facts on record, following order is passed :

i)

Shri K.C. Gupta, Joint Director of Defence Estates, South-

Western Command, Jaipur is appointed as Arbitrator to resolve

the dispute between the parties.

ii) The applicant shall deposit Rs.10,000/- with the Registry

of this Court within four weeks towards processing charges.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

JUDGE

RRaut..