Purna Nand vs Mcd
2009 Latest Caselaw 2935 Del

*           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