M/S Lord Shiva Construction ... vs The Haryana State Co-Op Labour And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11523 P&H

                                                  Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099297




201       RA-CR-114-2022 in
          ARB-512-2021

M/S LORD SHIVA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS THE
HARYANA STATE CO-OP LABOUR AND CONSTRUCTION
FED. LTD. AND ANR

Present: Mr. Lajpat Sharma, Advocate for
         Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate
         for the applicant-petitioner.
               ****

The present review application has been filed under

Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for review of

order dated 14.10.2022 passed by this Court in Arbitration case

No.512 of 2021.

Vide the aforesaid common order, ARB No.170 of

2017 and ARB No.512 of 2021 were decided.

The issue involved in both the cases was in respect

of deposit of refundable security amount in terms of Section

25.A.5 of the contract agreement. During course of arguments,

at one point of time, learned counsel for the petitioner was

specifically asked as to whether the petitioner is ready to

deposit 10% of the amount claimed in order to avail the benefit

of arbitration clause. On the option so given, learned counsel for

the petitioner obtained the necessary instructions from his client

and thereafter submitted that the petitioner is not interested in

depositing any amount towards the pre-deposit. Thereafter this

Court proceeded to decide the case on the basis of facts and

legal position emerging from M/s ICOMM Tele Ltd. Vs. Punjab

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099297

State Water Supply & Sewerage Board and Anr., 2019(5)

R.C.R. (Civil) 242 and S.K. Jain vs. State of Haryana, 2009(2)

R.C.R. (Civil) 202.

Notice of this review application was issued to the

office of Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the respondents but

none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-

petitioner at length.

Learned counsel cannot be permitted to re-argue the

case even on the ground that the statement of fact recorded in

para no.16 of the judgment was only in respect of ARB No.170

of 2017 and not in ARB No.512 of 2021.

Since Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate was representing

the petitioner(s) in both the cases, therefore, option to deposit

the amount towards pre-deposit was made in both the cases to

which a specific reply was made by learned counsel for the

petitioner in negative.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no ground

to interfere in the review application. The review application is

accordingly dismissed.

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) JUDGE August 1st, 2023 Atik

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099297

2 of 2