Punjab-Haryana High Court
Servotech Electricals Pvt Ltd vs M/S Imperial Housing Ventures Pvt ... on 10 November, 2022
ARB-188-2018 (O&M) 1
227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
ARB No.188 of 2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.11.2022
SERVOTECH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD
......Petitioner
Vs
M/S IMPERIAL HOUSING VENTURES PVT LTD
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present:Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Talwar, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)
[1]. The petitioner has filed the present petition under
Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') for appointment of an
independent Arbitrator to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal for
adjudication of the dispute between the parties.
[2]. It is not in dispute that the sole Arbitrator Mr. B.M.
Bajaj, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) was appointed in
terms of clause 52.3 of the contract agreement for Paras Tierea
project.
1 of 3
[3]. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite number
of communications addressed to the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator
has failed to act without undue delay and thus the mandate of
the Arbitrator is liable to be terminated on the ground of his
failure to act without undue delay.
[4]. The petitioner has not filed petition under Section 13,
14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before
the concerned Court. In view of Swadesh Kumar Agarwal vs.
Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC
556, if the mandate of the Arbitrator is sought to be terminated
on the ground that the sole Arbitrator has failed to act without
undue delay, then the aggrieved party has to approach the
concerned Court, which is defined under Section 2(e) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court means the
Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the District having
jurisdiction to decide the questions forming subject matter of
arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of a suit.
This Court is not the Court of original jurisdiction having
jurisdiction to decide the question forming the subject matter of
the arbitration, if the same is in the form of civil suit.
[5]. In view of aforesaid judgment, the petitioner has to
approach the concerned Court defined under Section 2(e) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. the Principal Civil
2 of 3
Court of original jurisdiction in the District Gurugram.
[6]. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the
petitioner wishes to withdraw this petition with a liberty to
approach the concerned Court as defined under Section 2(e) of
the Act. In the event of filing any petition under Sections 13, 14
and 15 of the Act, the same shall be decided by the concerned
Court at the earliest in accordance with law.
[7]. Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
November 10, 2022 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
