Delhi High Court
M/S Rama Construction Company vs High Court Of Delhi on 13 July, 2010
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
{WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 4556/2010}
Date of decision: July 13, 2010.
M/S RAMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY . . .PETITIONER
THROUGH : Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate for the
petitioner.
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF DELHI . . . RESPONDENT
THROUGH: Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate for Mr.
Viraj R.Datar, Advocate for
respondent/DHC with Mr. P.K.
Uppal, AR (Rules), DHC.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J. ( ORAL)
Rule D.B.
1. Mr. Lokur, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and waive the
service of Rule. Having regard to the nature of the issue raised in this petition,
we are of the opinion that the petition can be disposed of at this stage itself.
2. It is pointed out in this petition that in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub Section (10) of Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) read with para 12 of the Scheme for
Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, Notification dated 29th January, 1996 was
issued providing Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators. This was further
amended on 18th August, 2003.
3. Para 3 of the said Scheme specifies the authorities who were to deal with
the request made for appointment of arbitrators under Section 11 of the Act. It
was stipulated that in case where value of the subject matter does not exceed
rupees 5 lacs, the authority to deal with the matter was designated to the Civil
Judge. Likewise, where the value of the subject matter does not exceed rupees
20 lacs, the District Judge/ Additional District Judge was designated as the
authority to deal with the request for appointment of an arbitrator.
4. A seven Judges Bench of Supreme Court in S.B.P. & Co. Vs. Patel
Engineering, 2005 (3) Arb. LR 285 (SC) overruled its earlier decision of five
Judges Bench given in the case of Konkan Railway Corporation v. Rani
Construction Pvt. Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 388 that the power under Section 11 of
the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is an administrative power and held that
the said power under Section 11 is a judicial power. The Apex Court further
held that since Section 11 of the Act uses the expression "Chief Justice" or the
authority designated by it, who is to deal with such a request, the delegation of
power of the Chief Justice can be dealt with by the Judges of the High
Court/Supreme Court respectively and such a power could not be delegated to
Civil Judge or District Judge under Section 11 of the Act. This necessitated the
amendment in the aforesaid scheme. Accordingly, notification dated 9th
November, 2009 was issued.
5. In this petition, the petitioner points out that though by aforesaid
notification, the processing charges have been modified vide amendment to
para 10 of the Scheme in respect of the Civil Judge/ District Judge or High
Court, there was no necessity to revise the charges in respect of matter to be
dealt by Civil Judge/ District Judge as no power was left with Civil Judge/District
Judge. It is further mentioned that there is no amendment made to para 3 of
the Scheme thereby deleting clause (a) and (b) which referred to Civil
Judge/District Judge as this reference has become redundant.
6. Mr. Lokur points out that the consequential changes have already been
made and only formal Notification incorporating those amendments remains to
be issued.
7. In view of the statement of the learned Counsel for the respondent, no
direction needs to be given in this petition as the prayers made in the petition
stand satisfied.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(REVA KHETRAPAL)
JULY 13, 2010 JUDGE
skb
