Delhi High Court
M/S Ludhiana Wool Emporium & Ors. vs Jasvinder Pal Singh And Anr on 17 September, 2013
Author: Manmohan Singh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order Pronounced on: September 17, 2013
+ CM(M) No.450/2012 & C.M. No.7031/2012
M/S LUDHIANA WOOL EMPORIUM & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Gurmeet Singh Ahuja, Adv.
versus
JASVINDER PAL SINGH AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through Respondent No.1 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the orders dated 29th September, 2011, 5th
November, 2011, 12th December, 2011 and 21st January, 2012 whereby the
petition of the petitioners/objectors under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as the application for recalling of records
from the learned trial Court were dismissed.
2. Brief facts are that respondent No.1/claimant had filed a claim petition
for adjudication of disputes and differences before the Arbitration
Association of respondent No.2 who was appointed as sole Arbitrator by the
Secretary of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Regd.). The
Arbitrator passed an ex parte Award dated 24th February, 1998. Thereafter,
the respondent No.1 filed execution proceedings in terms of the Award
passed in his favour.
3. The petitioners filed the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the same Executing Court wherein the
execution proceedings were pending. The contention of the petitioners is
that earlier the Civil Court was functioning as per the concurrent jurisdiction
values where the objection petition under Section 34 of the Act was filed.
However, later on, the same was assigned to Civil Judge and Addl. District
Judge. The Executing Court had summoned the arbitration proceedings
from the office of the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Regd.) who
submitted the same. The Civil Judge in view of the order passed by the
High Court placed the matter before the learned District Judge, Delhi who
assigned the same to the learned Court of Ms.Sujata Kohli, Addl. District
Judge, for adjudication of the proceedings. Since the arbitration record was
not available, the order was passed for its requisition from the Civil Judge
where the execution proceedings bearing No.17 of 2000 were being dealt by
the Civil Judge.
4. Notice in the objections filed by the petitioners was not issued due to
default of the petitioners and costs were imposed upon them from time to
time. The petitioners thereafter filed an application for waiver of the cost.
However, the same was dismissed. The petitioners have now challenged the
orders dated 29th September, 2011, 5th November, 2011, 12th December,
2011 and 21st January, 2012 whereby the costs were imposed and the
application for waiver of costs was also dismissed.
5. The respondent No.1, who is a senior citizen, has strongly opposed the
present petition by stating that despite of Award passed on 24 th February,
1998, the same has not been implemented by the petitioners. He further
submits that the petitioners are intentionally and deliberately delaying the
proceedings on one reason or the other. He further submits that the
objections filed by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 are also time barred and not maintainable. He states
that he is not responsible if the arbitration record has not been transferred
from the Civil Court to the Addl. District Judge. He also states that even the
present petition has been filed by the petitioners for the purpose of
harassment and even, the costs imposed by the Court upon the petitioners
from time to time have not been paid on false and flimsy grounds.
6. After having considered the material placed on the record, I totally
agree with the contentions of respondent No.1. It appears that the present
petition is not maintainable. The application for waiving of costs has already
been examined by the Court who had given the reasoned order for dismissal
of the same. It appears that the petitioners are solely responsible for not
paying the awarded amount in terms of the Award passed on 24th February,
1998. More than 15 years have expired. Nothing has been paid by the
petitioners to the respondent No.1. Even, the alleged objections under
Section 34 of the Act are admittedly not filed in time. It is merely a
harassment done by the petitioners towards the said respondent.
7. The present petition is highly misconceived and the same is
dismissed, with cost of `20,000/- which shall be paid by the petitioners to
respondent No.1 within two weeks from today. In case, the petitioners fail
to pay the said cost, the same is recoverable by respondent No.1 by filing of
the execution.
8. Pending application also stands disposed of.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
