Mohd. Haneef vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
2009 Latest Caselaw 3970 Del

     *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                    ARB.APPL.96/2009

%                           Date of decision: 25th September, 2009


PANKAJ GUPTA                                             ....Petitioner
                             Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Advocate

                                    Versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ... Respondent
                             Through: Mr Himanshu Upadhyaya with Mr Nitin
                             Kumar, Advocates.


                                  AND


                     ARB.APPL.100/2009

MOHD. HANEEF                                             ....Petitioner
                             Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Advocate

                                    Versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ... Respondent

                             Through: Mr Himanshu Upadhyaya with Mr Nitin
                             Kumar, Advocates.


CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may
       be allowed to see the judgment?                   NO

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?            NO

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported           NO
       in the Digest?


RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The counsels have mentioned the two petitions under Section

11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and state that the position with

respect to these is the same as of arbitration petitions 84/2009 and

99/2009 (also under Section 11 of the Act) listed and disposed of

yesterday. They state that the same arbitrator as appointed in the

petitions aforesaid listed yesterday and on the same terms and

conditions be appointed in these two petitions also.

2. The claims subject matter of arbitration petition No.84/2009

and Arbitration petition No. 99/2009 listed yesterday, prima facie

appeared to be time barred and long dead. However, on the

contentions of the petitioners, it was found that the issue whether

the claim is a dead/long barred claim could not be decided without

further investigation and was as such left open for the decision of the

arbitral tribunal.

3. The same is the position with respect to these two petitions

also. The said question of limitation qua claims subject matter of

these two petitions is also left open for decision by the arbitral

tribunal.

4. The Commissioner MCD being the authority for appointing the

arbitrator is found to have forfeited the right of appointment in these

two petitions also. The petitions are thus allowed.

5. Mr S.M. Chopra, retired Additional District Judge is appointed

as the arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the

arbitration clause subject matter of agreement in these two petitions

between the parties, including the issue whether the claims are time

barred/dead or live claims. The claim of the petitioner in arbitration

application 96/2009 is stated to be approximately for Rs 3,55,000/-

and in arbitration application 100/2009 is stated to be approximately

of Rs 5,58,000/-. Considering the volume of the claims, the

consolidated fee of the arbitrator in both the petitions is fixed at Rs

40,000/- besides out of pocket expenses and to be borne in the first

instance by the petitioner and subject to award as to costs. The

parties to appear before the arbitrator with prior appointment on

23rd October, 2009.

Order be given dasti as prayed for.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) September 25th , 2009 M