S. S. Builders vs The Wembleys Co-Operative House ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 18997 P&H

                                                                                 2023:PHHC:140399


                               In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
                                                At Chandigarh

                                                                   ARB-216-2019 (O&M)
                                                                   Date of Decision:-03.11.2023


                 S. S. Builders                                                  ... Petitioner

                                                    Versus

                 The Wembleys Co-Operative House Building
                 Society Ltd. and another

                                                                             ... Respondents

                 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL


                 Present:-        Mr. A.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Mr. S.K.Kanojia, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

                                  Mr. K.S.Rathour, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

                                                    *****

                 GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)

1. This Court finds that CM-8939-CII-2022 remains undecided. The said

application has been moved on behalf of applicant-Satkar Singh/sole

Proprietor of M/s S.S.Builders to implead himself as a party to the instant

petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed that he has no objection in

acceptance of the said application. As such, the application is allowed and

Mr. Satkar Singh is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.3. The

amended memo of parties, annexed with the application is taken on record.

MOHAN SINGH 2023.11.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment ARB-216-2019 (O&M) (2) 2023:PHHC:140399

3. The instant petition has been filed by M/s S.S.Builders (a partnership firm)

seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of provisions of Section 11(6)

of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

4. Initially, a contract dated 28.9.2006 (Annexure A-4) was entered into between

respondent No.1-M/s The Wembleys Co-Operative House Building Society

Ltd. and M/s S.S.Builders (petitioner) for execution of the construction work

in respect of the flats to be constructed for the housing society. Subsequently,

a dispute having arisen, the petitioner requested for invoking arbitration vide

letter dated 24.7.2018 (Annexue A-11), but to no avail leading to filing of the

instant petition.

5. Pursuant to issuance of notice of motion, Mr. S.K.Kanojia, Advocate had put

in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. K.S.Rathour,

Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent No.3.

6. Learned counsel representing respondents No.1 and 2 has vehemently

opposed the petition on the ground that there was no agreement entered into

between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and that the agreement

(Annexure A-4) was entered between the respondent-society (respondents

No.1 and 2) and a sole proprietorship firm by the name M/s S. S. Builders. It

has further been submitted that the petitioner herein claims to be a partnership

firm stated to have been constituted vide a partnership deed dated 03.09.2010

(Annexure A-1) wherein Victor Singh is also shown as a partner though said

Victor Singh happened to be a General Secretary of the housing society and

as such could not have been part of the firm undertaking construction for

society itself.

MOHAN SINGH 2023.11.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment ARB-216-2019 (O&M) (3) 2023:PHHC:140399

7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 further submitted that although

there is another agreement of even date indicating that Victor Singh had

retired w.e.f. 18.11.2010 but the same is apparently a forged and fabricated

document inasmuch as the stamp paper bears the date 03.09.2010.

8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 further submitted that as a

matter of fact, the entire payment as due, has already been paid to newly

added respondent No.3-Satkar Singh, sole Proprietor of M/s S. S. Builders,

with whom the contract (Annexure A-4) had actually been entered into.

9. Mr. K.S.Rathour, Advocate, representing newly added respondent No.3-

Satkar Singh Bawa, sole proprietor of M/s S. S. Builders has vehemently

denied the assertion of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the effect that the entire

payment already stood paid. It has further been submitted that the partnership

deeds annexed as Annexure A-1 and A-2 are a result of forgery and

fabrication and that he had never signed on the said documents. Learned

counsel for respondent No.3 has further submitted that as a matter of fact he

is entitled to the outstanding payment in respect of the construction

undertaken by M/s S.S.Builders.

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since several

payments had already been made in the bank account of the petitioner/firm,

and that Satkar Singh and Victor Singh are also the partners of the firm,

therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot raise any dispute in respect of

sanctity of the same.

11. This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and has also perused the

agreement dated 28.9.2006.

MOHAN SINGH 2023.11.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment ARB-216-2019 (O&M) (4) 2023:PHHC:140399

12. A perusal of agreement dated 28.9.2006 (Annexure A-4) would indicate that

there is a specific provision for resolution of disputes by way of arbitration.

This Court does find that there is a dispute with respect to the payments in

respect of the work undertaken. Though, several other issues regarding

forgery of some agreements have been raised before this Court, but this Court

cannot overlook the fact that in any case, the sole proprietor of M/s S.S.

Builder, with whom admittedly respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into an

agreement is also before this Court. Evidently there exists a dispute between

the parties as regards payment arising out of contract between parties wherein

resolution through arbitration is specifically provided. As such, this Court at

this stage is not required to return findings as regards the authenticity of the

documents. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of

the case, the petition merits acceptance and is hereby accepted.

13. Accordingly, Chief Justice Satish Kumar Mittal (Retd.) is appointed as the

sole Arbitrator. However, such appointment would be subject to the

declaration to be made by Chief Justice Satish Kumar Mittal (Retd.) under

Section 12 of the Act with regard to his independence and impartiality to

settle the disputes between the parties.

14. The Arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the

Act, as amended or as may be mutually settled by the parties and the

Arbitrator.

15. The Arbitrator may conduct proceedings at Arbitration Centre, Chandigarh or

at any other place convenient to all concerned.

MOHAN SINGH 2023.11.07 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment ARB-216-2019 (O&M) (5) 2023:PHHC:140399

16. After seeking convenience of the Arbitrator, the parties are directed to appear

before him on 16.11.2023 at 11:00 A.M. or any other date suitable to all

concerned.

17. A copy of this order be sent to the appointed Arbitrator at the given address :

H.No. 1545, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

Phone No. 97800-08107

18. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above mentioned terms.

                 03.11.2023                                             ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL )
                 mohan                                                            JUDGE
                                     Whether speaking /reasoned         Yes / No

                                     Whether Reportable                 Yes / No




MOHAN SINGH
2023.11.07 18:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment